sorting in an array of arraylist - sorting

I have a list of integer that is stored into another arraylist.
List<List<Integer>> h = new ArrayList<List<Integer>>();
ArrayList<Integer> temp = new ArrayList<Integer>();
temp.add(x1);
temp.add(x2);
temp.add(y);
h.add(temp);
i would like to sort it according to the first number of that array.
input
(2 4 3)
(1 3 2)
(3 4 5)
expected output
(1 3 2)
(2 4 3)
(3 4 5)
I have tried using collections.sort but it seems to be not working.
Are there any other method i can try sorting it?

You want a custom comparator to compare lists of lists of integers.
public class ListComparator implements Comparator<List<Integer>> {
#Override
public int compare(List<Integer> list1, List<Integer> list2) {
int value1 = list1.get(0);
int value2 = list2.get(0);
return Integer.compare(value1, value2);
}
}
Then you pass it in as the second argument to sort.
Collections.sort(demoList, new ListComparator());
EDIT - here is a version that handles null and empty lists in the list being sorted.
public class ListComparator implements Comparator<List<Integer>> {
#Override
public int compare(List<Integer> list1, List<Integer> list2) {
int result = 0;
if (list1 == null) {
// define null as equal to null and less than everything else
result = (list2 == null) ? 0 : -1;
}
else if (list1.isEmpty()) {
// define empty as greater than null, equal to empty, and less than non-empty
result = (list2 == null) ? 1 : (list2.isEmpty() ? 0 : -1);
}
else if (list2 == null || list2.isEmpty()) {
// define non-empty (list1) as greater than null or empty
result = 1;
}
else {
// both are non-empty so compare the first values from each
int value1 = list1.get(0);
int value2 = list2.get(0);
result = Integer.compare(value1, value2);
}
return result;
}
}

Related

Generate ordered list of sum between elements in large lists

I'm not sure whether this question should be posted in math of overflow, but here we go.
I have an arbitrary amount of ordered lists (say 3 for example) with numerical values. These lists can be long enough that trying all combinations of values becomes too computationally heavy.
What I need is to get an ordered list of possible sums when picking one value from each of the lists. Since the lists can be large, I only want the N smallest sums.
What I've considered is to step down one of the lists for each iteration. This however misses many cases that would have been possible if another list would have been chosen for that step.
An alternative would be a recursive solution, but that would generate many duplicate cases instead.
Is there any known methods that could solve such a problem?
Let we have K lists.
Make min-heap.
a) Push a structure contaning sum of elements from every list (the first ones at this elements) and list of indexes key = Sum(L[i][0]), [ix0=0, ix1=0, ix2=0]
b) Pop the smallest element from the heap, output key (sum) value
c) Construct K new elements from popped one - for every increment corresponding index and update sum
key - L[0][ix0] + L[0][ix0 + 1], [ix0 + 1, ix1, ix2]
key - L[1][ix1] + L[1][ix1 + 1], [ix0, ix1 + 1, ix2]
same for ix2
d) Push them into the heap
e) Repeat from b) until N smallest sums are extracted
A Java implementation of the min heap algorithm with a simple test case:
The algorithm itself is just as described by #MBo.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Comparator;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
class MinHeapElement {
int sum;
List<Integer> idx;
}
public class SumFromKLists {
public static List<Integer> sumFromKLists(List<List<Integer>> lists, int N) {
List<Integer> ans = new ArrayList<>();
if(N == 0) {
return ans;
}
PriorityQueue<MinHeapElement> minPq = new PriorityQueue<>(new Comparator<MinHeapElement>() {
#Override
public int compare(MinHeapElement e1, MinHeapElement e2) {
return e1.sum - e2.sum;
}
});
MinHeapElement smallest = new MinHeapElement();
smallest.idx = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < lists.size(); i++) {
smallest.sum += lists.get(i).get(0);
smallest.idx.add(0);
}
minPq.add(smallest);
ans.add(smallest.sum);
while(ans.size() < N) {
MinHeapElement curr = minPq.poll();
if(ans.get(ans.size() - 1) != curr.sum) {
ans.add(curr.sum);
}
List<MinHeapElement> candidates = nextPossibleCandidates(lists, curr);
if(candidates.size() == 0) {
break;
}
minPq.addAll(candidates);
}
return ans;
}
private static List<MinHeapElement> nextPossibleCandidates(List<List<Integer>> lists, MinHeapElement minHeapElement) {
List<MinHeapElement> candidates = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < lists.size(); i++) {
List<Integer> currList = lists.get(i);
int newIdx = minHeapElement.idx.get(i) + 1;
while(newIdx < currList.size() && currList.get(newIdx) == currList.get(newIdx - 1)) {
newIdx++;
}
if(newIdx < currList.size()) {
MinHeapElement nextElement = new MinHeapElement();
nextElement.sum = minHeapElement.sum + currList.get(newIdx) - currList.get(minHeapElement.idx.get(i));
nextElement.idx = new ArrayList<>(minHeapElement.idx);
nextElement.idx.set(i, newIdx);
candidates.add(nextElement);
}
}
return candidates;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> list1 = new ArrayList<>();
list1.add(2); list1.add(4); list1.add(7); list1.add(8);
List<Integer> list2 = new ArrayList<>();
list2.add(1); list2.add(3); list2.add(5); list2.add(8);
List<List<Integer>> lists = new ArrayList<>();
lists.add(list1); lists.add(list2);
sumFromKLists(lists, 11);
}
}

How to assign unique id to user so that if it's already assigned try to assign id + 1

User chooses id he wants and if it was already assigned to another user then assign minimal free id that is greater than chosen.
User can be deleted and it makes id to be usable again.
I thought it's enough to use HashSet since it's access complexity is O(1) and I just check every greater entry by using contains method.
But in cases like 20000 first IDs assigned and then 20000 new users try to use id 1 HashSet has really slow performance.
What can I do to improve performance? Is there special data structure for such cases?
You need a search tree (or something similar)! Binary tree is one of the simplest types of search trees, but its main disadvantage is that it is not balanced and might be slower than the self-balancing trees, such as the red-black tree.
Of course, you won't have O(1) time complexity (I doubt there is an algorithm which is able to find, remove and add in O(1)), but you will have O(lg n) (in case of the slowest trees) or amortized O(1) (for the best trees) time complexity for insertion and removal (with look up)(time complexity is tree specific).
I suggest using a binary search tree to store unused id.
Binary search tree support finding the smallest item that is greater than input item in O(log n) time. (n is number of items in trees)
Some languages have already implemented this. For example upper_bound[1] for set in cpp or higher[2] for TreeSet in java.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/set/upper_bound
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/TreeSet.html#higher(E)
I didn't know it when I asked the question but it's a task from SPOJ: BLUNIQ
I've solved it by using a range structure and TreeSet to store ranges. So initial idea to use search tree was good I just needed to store numbers in ranges and manage them properly. TreeSet has useful methods such as floor (lower or equal) and higher so complexity of search for two nearest ranges (left side and right side) is O(logN).
Both answers from Petar Petrovic and Whatever are OK but they would give Time Limit Exceeded error without specific data structure.
I haven't read any solutions for this task so there could be even faster solution.
static class Range implements Comparable<Range> {
int leftBound;
int rightBound;
public Range(int leftBound, int rightBound) {
this.leftBound = leftBound;
this.rightBound = rightBound;
}
public void remove(int x) {
if (x == leftBound) leftBound++; else
if (x == rightBound) rightBound--; else {
ranges.remove(this);
ranges.add(new Range(leftBound, x - 1));
ranges.add(new Range(x + 1, rightBound));
}
if (size() <= 0) ranges.remove(this);
}
public long size() {
return rightBound - leftBound + 1;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Range range) {
return Long.compare(rightBound, range.rightBound);
}
public boolean contains(int x) {
return leftBound <=x && x <= rightBound;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "[" + leftBound + "; " + rightBound + "]";
}
}
static public void add(int x) {
Range singleRange = new Range(x, x);
Range lowerOrEqual = ranges.floor(singleRange);
Range higher = ranges.higher(singleRange);
if ((lowerOrEqual == null || lowerOrEqual.rightBound + 1 < x) && (higher == null || higher.leftBound - 1 > x)) {
System.out.println(x);
ranges.add(singleRange);
} else {
if (lowerOrEqual != null && (lowerOrEqual.rightBound == x || lowerOrEqual.rightBound + 1 == x)) {
System.out.println(++lowerOrEqual.rightBound);
if (higher != null && lowerOrEqual.rightBound == higher.leftBound - 1) {
Range merged = new Range(lowerOrEqual.leftBound, higher.rightBound);
ranges.remove(lowerOrEqual);
ranges.remove(higher);
ranges.add(merged);
}
} else if (higher != null && higher.leftBound - 1 == x) {
System.out.println(--higher.leftBound);
if (lowerOrEqual != null && lowerOrEqual.rightBound == higher.leftBound - 1) {
Range merged = new Range(lowerOrEqual.leftBound, higher.rightBound);
ranges.remove(lowerOrEqual);
ranges.remove(higher);
ranges.add(merged);
}
} else if (higher != null && higher.contains(x)) {
System.out.println(++higher.rightBound);
Range higherThanHigher = ranges.higher(higher);
if (higherThanHigher != null && higher.rightBound + 1 == higherThanHigher.leftBound) {
Range merged = new Range(higher.leftBound, higherThanHigher.rightBound);
ranges.remove(higher);
ranges.remove(higherThanHigher);
ranges.add(merged);
}
}
}
}
and how it was used:
private static TreeSet<Range> ranges = new TreeSet<>();
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
BufferedReader bufferRead = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
int N = Integer.parseInt(bufferRead.readLine());
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
String[] strings = bufferRead.readLine().split(" ");
int[] event = {Integer.parseInt(strings[0]), Integer.parseInt(strings[1])};
if (event[0] == 1) {
add(event[1]);
} else {
Range singleRange = new Range(event[1], event[1]);
Range lowerOrEqual = ranges.floor(singleRange);
Range higher = ranges.higher(singleRange);
if (lowerOrEqual != null && lowerOrEqual.rightBound == event[1]) {
lowerOrEqual.remove(event[1]);
} else if (higher != null && higher.leftBound <= event[1]) {
higher.remove(event[1]);
}
}
}
}

Algorithm ABBA(SRM 663, DIV 2, 500)

I am doing a problem from this blog
One day, Jamie noticed that many English words only use the letters A and B. Examples of such words include "AB" (short for abdominal), "BAA" (the noise a sheep makes), "AA" (a type of lava), and "ABBA" (a Swedish pop sensation).
Inspired by this observation, Jamie created a simple game. You are given two Strings: initial and target. The goal of the game is to find a sequence of valid moves that will change initial into target. There are two types of valid moves:
Add the letter A to the end of the string.
Reverse the string and then add the letter B to the end of the string.
Return "Possible" (quotes for clarity) if there is a sequence of valid moves that will change initial into target. Otherwise, return "Impossible".
My Questions:
My solution follows example steps: Firstly, reverse and append 'B', then append 'A'. I have no idea whether I need to use another order of the step(firstly, append 'A', then reverse and append 'B') at same time.
I got "ABBA" which should return "Possible", but "Impossible" was returned.
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
System.out.println(canContain("B","ABBA"));
}
public static String canContain(String Initial, String Target){
char[] target = new char[1000];
char[] initial1 = new char[1000];
int flag = 0;
boolean possible = false;
int InitialLength = Initial.length();
int TargetLength = Target.length();
System.out.println("Initial:");
int countInitial = -1;
for(char x : Initial.toCharArray()){
countInitial++;
if(x=='A')initial1[countInitial]='A';
if(x=='B')initial1[countInitial]='B';
System.out.print(x+"->"+initial1[countInitial]+" ");
}
int countTarget = -1;
System.out.println("\nTarget:");
for(char y : Target.toCharArray()){
countTarget++;
if(y=='A')target[countTarget]='A';
if(y=='B')target[countTarget]='B';
System.out.print(y+"->"+target[countTarget]+" ");
}
System.out.print("\n");
//Check Initial char[]
System.out.print("---------------");
System.out.print("\n");
for(int t1 = 0; t1 <= countInitial; t1++){
System.out.print(initial1[t1]+"-");
}
System.out.print("\n");
for(int t3 = 0; t3 <= countTarget; t3++){
System.out.print(target[t3]+"-");
}
while(countInitial != countTarget){
if(flag == 0 && Initial != Target){
System.out.println("\n_______A_______");
countInitial++;
System.out.println("countInitial = "+countInitial);
initial1[countInitial] = 'A';
System.out.println(initial1[countInitial]);
for(int t1 = 0; t1 <= countInitial; t1++){
System.out.print(initial1[t1]+"-");
}
flag = 1;
}else if(flag == 1 && Initial != Target){
System.out.println("\n_______R_+_B_______");
int ct = 0;
char[] temp = new char[1000];
for(int i = countInitial; i >= 0; i--){
System.out.println("countInitial = "+countInitial);
temp[ct] = initial1[i];
System.out.println("ct = "+ct);
ct++;
}
initial1 = temp;
countInitial++;
initial1[countInitial] = 'B';
for(int t1 = 0; t1 < countInitial; t1++){
System.out.print(initial1[t1]+"-");
}
flag = 0;
}
}
if(initial1.equals(target)){
return "Possible";
}else{
return "Impossible";
}
}
Your immediate problem is that you apply rules in the particular order. However it is not forbidden to use the same rule multiple times in a row. So to get the target string from the initial you need to inspect all possible sequences of rule applications. This is known as combinatorial explosion.
Problems like this is usually easier to solve working backwards. If the target string is xyzA it may only be obtained by rule 1 from xyz. If the target string is xyzB it may only be obtained by rule 2 from zyx. So in pseudocode,
while length(target) > length(initial)
remove the last letter from target
if removed letter is "B"
reverse target
if target == initial
print "Possible"
else
print "Impossible"
Of course, reversal doesn't have to be explicit.
Here's a solution which will run for a linear time O(n). The idea is that you start from the target string and try to revert the operations until you reach a string with the same length as the initial string. Then you compare these 2 strings. Here's the solution:
private static final char A = 'A';
private static final String POSSIBLE = "Possible";
private static final String IMPOSSIBLE = "Impossible";
public String canObtain(String initial, String target) {
if (initial == null ||
initial.trim().length() < 1 ||
initial.trim().length() > 999) {
return IMPOSSIBLE;
}
if (target == null ||
target.trim().length() < 2 ||
target.trim().length() > 1000) {
return IMPOSSIBLE;
}
return isPossible(initial, target) ? POSSIBLE : IMPOSSIBLE;
}
private boolean isPossible(String initial, String target) {
final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(target);
while (initial.length() != sb.length()) {
char targetLastChar = sb.charAt(sb.length() - 1);
if (targetLastChar == A) {
unApplyA(sb);
} else {
unApplyRevB(sb);
}
}
return initial.equals(sb.toString());
}
private void unApplyA(StringBuilder sb) {
sb.deleteCharAt(sb.length() - 1);
}
private void unApplyRevB(StringBuilder sb) {
sb.deleteCharAt(sb.length() - 1);
sb.reverse();
}
A little late to the party but this is a concise solution in Python that runs in linear time:
class ABBA:
def canObtain(self, initial, target):
if initial == target:
return 'Possible'
if len(initial) == len(target):
return 'Impossible'
if target[-1] == 'A':
return self.canObtain(initial, target[:-1])
if target[-1] == 'B':
return self.canObtain(initial, target[:-1][::-1])

finding if two words are anagrams of each other

I am looking for a method to find if two strings are anagrams of one another.
Ex: string1 - abcde
string2 - abced
Ans = true
Ex: string1 - abcde
string2 - abcfed
Ans = false
the solution i came up with so for is to sort both the strings and compare each character from both strings till the end of either strings.It would be O(logn).I am looking for some other efficient method which doesn't change the 2 strings being compared
Count the frequency of each character in the two strings. Check if the two histograms match. O(n) time, O(1) space (assuming ASCII) (Of course it is still O(1) space for Unicode but the table will become very large).
Get table of prime numbers, enough to map each prime to every character. So start from 1, going through line, multiply the number by the prime representing current character. Number you'll get is only depend on characters in string but not on their order, and every unique set of characters correspond to unique number, as any number may be factored in only one way. So you can just compare two numbers to say if a strings are anagrams of each other.
Unfortunately you have to use multiple precision (arbitrary-precision) integer arithmetic to do this, or you will get overflow or rounding exceptions when using this method.
For this you may use libraries like BigInteger, GMP, MPIR or IntX.
Pseudocode:
prime[] = {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101}
primehash(string)
Y = 1;
foreach character in string
Y = Y * prime[character-'a']
return Y
isanagram(str1, str2)
return primehash(str1)==primehash(str2)
Create a Hashmap where key - letter and value - frequencey of letter,
for first string populate the hashmap (O(n))
for second string decrement count and remove element from hashmap O(n)
if hashmap is empty, the string is anagram otherwise not.
The steps are:
check the length of of both the words/strings if they are equal then only proceed to check for anagram else do nothing
sort both the words/strings and then compare
JAVA CODE TO THE SAME:
/*
* To change this template, choose Tools | Templates
* and open the template in the editor.
*/
package anagram;
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import java.util.Arrays;
/**
*
* #author Sunshine
*/
public class Anagram {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
// TODO code application logic here
System.out.println("Enter the first string");
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
String s1 = br.readLine().toLowerCase();
System.out.println("Enter the Second string");
BufferedReader br2 = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
String s2 = br2.readLine().toLowerCase();
char c1[] = null;
char c2[] = null;
if (s1.length() == s2.length()) {
c1 = s1.toCharArray();
c2 = s2.toCharArray();
Arrays.sort(c1);
Arrays.sort(c2);
if (Arrays.equals(c1, c2)) {
System.out.println("Both strings are equal and hence they have anagram");
} else {
System.out.println("Sorry No anagram in the strings entred");
}
} else {
System.out.println("Sorry the string do not have anagram");
}
}
}
C#
public static bool AreAnagrams(string s1, string s2)
{
if (s1 == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("s1");
if (s2 == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("s2");
var chars = new Dictionary<char, int>();
foreach (char c in s1)
{
if (!chars.ContainsKey(c))
chars[c] = 0;
chars[c]++;
}
foreach (char c in s2)
{
if (!chars.ContainsKey(c))
return false;
chars[c]--;
}
return chars.Values.All(i => i == 0);
}
Some tests:
[TestMethod]
public void TestAnagrams()
{
Assert.IsTrue(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("anagramm", "nagaramm"));
Assert.IsTrue(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("anzagramm", "nagarzamm"));
Assert.IsTrue(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("anz121agramm", "nag12arz1amm"));
Assert.IsFalse(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("anagram", "nagaramm"));
Assert.IsFalse(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("nzagramm", "nagarzamm"));
Assert.IsFalse(StringUtil.AreAnagrams("anzagramm", "nag12arz1amm"));
}
Code to find whether two words are anagrams:
Logic explained already in few answers and few asking for the code. This solution produce the result in O(n) time.
This approach counts the no of occurrences of each character and store it in the respective ASCII location for each string. And then compare the two array counts. If it is not equal the given strings are not anagrams.
public boolean isAnagram(String str1, String str2)
{
//To get the no of occurrences of each character and store it in their ASCII location
int[] strCountArr1=getASCIICountArr(str1);
int[] strCountArr2=getASCIICountArr(str2);
//To Test whether the two arrays have the same count of characters. Array size 256 since ASCII 256 unique values
for(int i=0;i<256;i++)
{
if(strCountArr1[i]!=strCountArr2[i])
return false;
}
return true;
}
public int[] getASCIICountArr(String str)
{
char c;
//Array size 256 for ASCII
int[] strCountArr=new int[256];
for(int i=0;i<str.length();i++)
{
c=str.charAt(i);
c=Character.toUpperCase(c);// If both the cases are considered to be the same
strCountArr[(int)c]++; //To increment the count in the character's ASCII location
}
return strCountArr;
}
Using an ASCII hash-map that allows O(1) look-up for each char.
The java example listed above is converting to lower-case that seems incomplete. I have an example in C that simply initializes a hash-map array for ASCII values to '-1'
If string2 is different in length than string 1, no anagrams
Else, we update the appropriate hash-map values to 0 for each char in string1 and string2
Then for each char in string1, we update the count in hash-map. Similarily, we decrement the value of the count for each char in string2.
The result should have values set to 0 for each char if they are anagrams. if not, some positive value set by string1 remains
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define ARRAYMAX 128
#define True 1
#define False 0
int isAnagram(const char *string1,
const char *string2) {
int str1len = strlen(string1);
int str2len = strlen(string2);
if (str1len != str2len) /* Simple string length test */
return False;
int * ascii_hashtbl = (int * ) malloc((sizeof(int) * ARRAYMAX));
if (ascii_hashtbl == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Memory allocation failed\n");
return -1;
}
memset((void *)ascii_hashtbl, -1, sizeof(int) * ARRAYMAX);
int index = 0;
while (index < str1len) { /* Populate hash_table for each ASCII value
in string1*/
ascii_hashtbl[(int)string1[index]] = 0;
ascii_hashtbl[(int)string2[index]] = 0;
index++;
}
index = index - 1;
while (index >= 0) {
ascii_hashtbl[(int)string1[index]]++; /* Increment something */
ascii_hashtbl[(int)string2[index]]--; /* Decrement something */
index--;
}
/* Use hash_table to compare string2 */
index = 0;
while (index < str1len) {
if (ascii_hashtbl[(int)string1[index]] != 0) {
/* some char is missing in string2 from string1 */
free(ascii_hashtbl);
ascii_hashtbl = NULL;
return False;
}
index++;
}
free(ascii_hashtbl);
ascii_hashtbl = NULL;
return True;
}
int main () {
char array1[ARRAYMAX], array2[ARRAYMAX];
int flag;
printf("Enter the string\n");
fgets(array1, ARRAYMAX, stdin);
printf("Enter another string\n");
fgets(array2, ARRAYMAX, stdin);
array1[strcspn(array1, "\r\n")] = 0;
array2[strcspn(array2, "\r\n")] = 0;
flag = isAnagram(array1, array2);
if (flag == 1)
printf("%s and %s are anagrams.\n", array1, array2);
else if (flag == 0)
printf("%s and %s are not anagrams.\n", array1, array2);
return 0;
}
let's take a question: Given two strings s and t, write a function to determine if t is an anagram of s.
For example,
s = "anagram", t = "nagaram", return true.
s = "rat", t = "car", return false.
Method 1(Using HashMap ):
public class Method1 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "protijayi";
String b = "jayiproti";
System.out.println(isAnagram(a, b ));// output => true
}
private static boolean isAnagram(String a, String b) {
Map<Character ,Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
for( char c : a.toCharArray()) {
map.put(c, map.getOrDefault(c, 0 ) + 1 );
}
for(char c : b.toCharArray()) {
int count = map.getOrDefault(c, 0);
if(count == 0 ) {return false ; }
else {map.put(c, count - 1 ) ; }
}
return true;
}
}
Method 2 :
public class Method2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "protijayi";
String b = "jayiproti";
System.out.println(isAnagram(a, b));// output=> true
}
private static boolean isAnagram(String a, String b) {
int[] alphabet = new int[26];
for(int i = 0 ; i < a.length() ;i++) {
alphabet[a.charAt(i) - 'a']++ ;
}
for (int i = 0; i < b.length(); i++) {
alphabet[b.charAt(i) - 'a']-- ;
}
for( int w : alphabet ) {
if(w != 0 ) {return false;}
}
return true;
}
}
Method 3 :
public class Method3 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "protijayi";
String b = "jayiproti";
System.out.println(isAnagram(a, b ));// output => true
}
private static boolean isAnagram(String a, String b) {
char[] ca = a.toCharArray() ;
char[] cb = b.toCharArray();
Arrays.sort( ca );
Arrays.sort( cb );
return Arrays.equals(ca , cb );
}
}
Method 4 :
public class AnagramsOrNot {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "Protijayi";
String b = "jayiProti";
isAnagram(a, b);
}
private static void isAnagram(String a, String b) {
Map<Integer, Integer> map = new LinkedHashMap<>();
a.codePoints().forEach(code -> map.put(code, map.getOrDefault(code, 0) + 1));
System.out.println(map);
b.codePoints().forEach(code -> map.put(code, map.getOrDefault(code, 0) - 1));
System.out.println(map);
if (map.values().contains(0)) {
System.out.println("Anagrams");
} else {
System.out.println("Not Anagrams");
}
}
}
In Python:
def areAnagram(a, b):
if len(a) != len(b): return False
count1 = [0] * 256
count2 = [0] * 256
for i in a:count1[ord(i)] += 1
for i in b:count2[ord(i)] += 1
for i in range(256):
if(count1[i] != count2[i]):return False
return True
str1 = "Giniiii"
str2 = "Protijayi"
print(areAnagram(str1, str2))
Let's take another famous Interview Question: Group the Anagrams from a given String:
public class GroupAnagrams {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = "Gini Gina Protijayi iGin aGin jayiProti Soudipta";
Map<String, List<String>> map = Arrays.stream(a.split(" ")).collect(Collectors.groupingBy(GroupAnagrams::sortedString));
System.out.println("MAP => " + map);
map.forEach((k,v) -> System.out.println(k +" and the anagrams are =>" + v ));
/*
Look at the Map output:
MAP => {Giin=[Gini, iGin], Paiijorty=[Protijayi, jayiProti], Sadioptu=[Soudipta], Gain=[Gina, aGin]}
As we can see, there are multiple Lists. Hence, we have to use a flatMap(List::stream)
Now, Look at the output:
Paiijorty and the anagrams are =>[Protijayi, jayiProti]
Now, look at this output:
Sadioptu and the anagrams are =>[Soudipta]
List contains only word. No anagrams.
That means we have to work with map.values(). List contains all the anagrams.
*/
String stringFromMapHavingListofLists = map.values().stream().flatMap(List::stream).collect(Collectors.joining(" "));
System.out.println(stringFromMapHavingListofLists);
}
public static String sortedString(String a) {
String sortedString = a.chars().sorted()
.collect(StringBuilder::new, StringBuilder::appendCodePoint, StringBuilder::append).toString();
return sortedString;
}
/*
* The output : Gini iGin Protijayi jayiProti Soudipta Gina aGin
* All the anagrams are side by side.
*/
}
Now to Group Anagrams in Python is again easy.We have to :
Sort the lists. Then, Create a dictionary. Now dictionary will tell us where are those anagrams are( Indices of Dictionary). Then values of the dictionary is the actual indices of the anagrams.
def groupAnagrams(words):
# sort each word in the list
A = [''.join(sorted(word)) for word in words]
dict = {}
for indexofsamewords, names in enumerate(A):
dict.setdefault(names, []).append(indexofsamewords)
print(dict)
#{'AOOPR': [0, 2, 5, 11, 13], 'ABTU': [1, 3, 4], 'Sorry': [6], 'adnopr': [7], 'Sadioptu': [8, 16], ' KPaaehiklry': [9], 'Taeggllnouy': [10], 'Leov': [12], 'Paiijorty': [14, 18], 'Paaaikpr': [15], 'Saaaabhmryz': [17], ' CNaachlortttu': [19], 'Saaaaborvz': [20]}
for index in dict.values():
print([words[i] for i in index])
if __name__ == '__main__':
# list of words
words = ["ROOPA","TABU","OOPAR","BUTA","BUAT" , "PAROO","Soudipta",
"Kheyali Park", "Tollygaunge", "AROOP","Love","AOORP", "Protijayi","Paikpara","dipSouta","Shyambazaar",
"jayiProti", "North Calcutta", "Sovabazaar"]
groupAnagrams(words)
The Output :
['ROOPA', 'OOPAR', 'PAROO', 'AROOP', 'AOORP']
['TABU', 'BUTA', 'BUAT']
['Soudipta', 'dipSouta']
['Kheyali Park']
['Tollygaunge']
['Love']
['Protijayi', 'jayiProti']
['Paikpara']
['Shyambazaar']
['North Calcutta']
['Sovabazaar']
Another Important Anagram Question : Find the Anagram occuring Max. number of times.
In the Example, ROOPA is the word which has occured maximum number of times.
Hence, ['ROOPA' 'OOPAR' 'PAROO' 'AROOP' 'AOORP'] will be the final output.
from sqlite3 import collections
from statistics import mode, mean
import numpy as np
# list of words
words = ["ROOPA","TABU","OOPAR","BUTA","BUAT" , "PAROO","Soudipta",
"Kheyali Park", "Tollygaunge", "AROOP","Love","AOORP",
"Protijayi","Paikpara","dipSouta","Shyambazaar",
"jayiProti", "North Calcutta", "Sovabazaar"]
print(".....Method 1....... ")
sortedwords = [''.join(sorted(word)) for word in words]
print(sortedwords)
print("...........")
LongestAnagram = np.array(words)[np.array(sortedwords) == mode(sortedwords)]
# Longest anagram
print("Longest anagram by Method 1:")
print(LongestAnagram)
print(".....................................................")
print(".....Method 2....... ")
A = [''.join(sorted(word)) for word in words]
dict = {}
for indexofsamewords,samewords in enumerate(A):
dict.setdefault(samewords,[]).append(samewords)
#print(dict)
#{'AOOPR': ['AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR'], 'ABTU': ['ABTU', 'ABTU', 'ABTU'], 'Sadioptu': ['Sadioptu', 'Sadioptu'], ' KPaaehiklry': [' KPaaehiklry'], 'Taeggllnouy': ['Taeggllnouy'], 'Leov': ['Leov'], 'Paiijorty': ['Paiijorty', 'Paiijorty'], 'Paaaikpr': ['Paaaikpr'], 'Saaaabhmryz': ['Saaaabhmryz'], ' CNaachlortttu': [' CNaachlortttu'], 'Saaaaborvz': ['Saaaaborvz']}
aa = max(dict.items() , key = lambda x : len(x[1]))
print("aa => " , aa)
word, anagrams = aa
print("Longest anagram by Method 2:")
print(" ".join(anagrams))
The Output :
.....Method 1.......
['AOOPR', 'ABTU', 'AOOPR', 'ABTU', 'ABTU', 'AOOPR', 'Sadioptu', ' KPaaehiklry', 'Taeggllnouy', 'AOOPR', 'Leov', 'AOOPR', 'Paiijorty', 'Paaaikpr', 'Sadioptu', 'Saaaabhmryz', 'Paiijorty', ' CNaachlortttu', 'Saaaaborvz']
...........
Longest anagram by Method 1:
['ROOPA' 'OOPAR' 'PAROO' 'AROOP' 'AOORP']
.....................................................
.....Method 2.......
aa => ('AOOPR', ['AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR', 'AOOPR'])
Longest anagram by Method 2:
AOOPR AOOPR AOOPR AOOPR AOOPR
Well you can probably improve the best case and average case substantially just by checking the length first, then a quick checksum on the digits (not something complex, as that will probably be worse order than the sort, just a summation of ordinal values), then sort, then compare.
If the strings are very short the checksum expense will be not greatly dissimilar to the sort in many languages.
How about this?
a = "lai d"
b = "di al"
sorteda = []
sortedb = []
for i in a:
if i != " ":
sorteda.append(i)
if c == len(b):
for x in b:
c -= 1
if x != " ":
sortedb.append(x)
sorteda.sort(key = str.lower)
sortedb.sort(key = str.lower)
print sortedb
print sorteda
print sortedb == sorteda
How about Xor'ing both the strings??? This will definitely be of O(n)
char* arr1="ab cde";
int n1=strlen(arr1);
char* arr2="edcb a";
int n2=strlen(arr2);
// to check for anagram;
int c=0;
int i=0, j=0;
if(n1!=n2)
printf("\nNot anagram");
else {
while(i<n1 || j<n2)
{
c^= ((int)arr1[i] ^ (int)arr2[j]);
i++;
j++;
}
}
if(c==0) {
printf("\nAnagram");
}
else printf("\nNot anagram");
}
static bool IsAnagram(string s1, string s2)
{
if (s1.Length != s2.Length)
return false;
else
{
int sum1 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < s1.Length; i++)
sum1 += (int)s1[i]-(int)s2[i];
if (sum1 == 0)
return true;
else
return false;
}
}
For known (and small) sets of valid letters (e.g. ASCII) use a table with counts associated with each valid letter. First string increments counts, second string decrements counts. Finally iterate through the table to see if all counts are zero (strings are anagrams) or there are non-zero values (strings are not anagrams). Make sure to convert all characters to uppercase (or lowercase, all the same) and to ignore white space.
For a large set of valid letters, such as Unicode, do not use table but rather use a hash table. It has O(1) time to add, query and remove and O(n) space. Letters from first string increment count, letters from second string decrement count. Count that becomes zero is removed form the hash table. Strings are anagrams if at the end hash table is empty. Alternatively, search terminates with negative result as soon as any count becomes negative.
Here is the detailed explanation and implementation in C#: Testing If Two Strings are Anagrams
If strings have only ASCII characters:
create an array of 256 length
traverse the first string and increment counter in the array at index = ascii value of the character. also keep counting characters to find length when you reach end of string
traverse the second string and decrement counter in the array at index = ascii value of the character. If the value is ever 0 before decrementing, return false since the strings are not anagrams. also, keep track of the length of this second string.
at the end of the string traversal, if lengths of the two are equal, return true, else, return false.
If string can have unicode characters, then use a hash map instead of an array to keep track of the frequency. Rest of the algorithm remains same.
Notes:
calculating length while adding characters to array ensures that we traverse each string only once.
Using array in case of an ASCII only string optimizes space based on the requirement.
I guess your sorting algorithm is not really O(log n), is it?
The best you can get is O(n) for your algorithm, because you have to check every character.
You might use two tables to store the counts of each letter in every word, fill it with O(n) and compare it with O(1).
It seems that the following implementation works too, can you check?
int histogram[256] = {0};
for (int i = 0; i < strlen(str1); ++i) {
/* Just inc and dec every char count and
* check the histogram against 0 in the 2nd loop */
++histo[str1[i]];
--histo[str2[i]];
}
for (int i = 0; i < 256; ++i) {
if (histo[i] != 0)
return 0; /* not an anagram */
}
return 1; /* an anagram */
/* Program to find the strings are anagram or not*/
/* Author Senthilkumar M*/
Eg.
Anagram:
str1 = stackoverflow
str2 = overflowstack
Not anagram:`enter code here`
str1 = stackforflow
str2 = stacknotflow
int is_anagram(char *str1, char *str2)
{
int l1 = strlen(str1);
int l2 = strlen(str2);
int s1 = 0, s2 = 0;
int i = 0;
/* if both the string are not equal it is not anagram*/
if(l1 != l2) {
return 0;
}
/* sum up the character in the strings
if the total sum of the two strings is not equal
it is not anagram */
for( i = 0; i < l1; i++) {
s1 += str1[i];
s2 += str2[i];
}
if(s1 != s2) {
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
If both strings are of equal length proceed, if not then the strings are not anagrams.
Iterate each string while summing the ordinals of each character. If the sums are equal then the strings are anagrams.
Example:
public Boolean AreAnagrams(String inOne, String inTwo) {
bool result = false;
if(inOne.Length == inTwo.Length) {
int sumOne = 0;
int sumTwo = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < inOne.Length; i++) {
sumOne += (int)inOne[i];
sumTwo += (int)inTwo[i];
}
result = sumOne == sumTwo;
}
return result;
}
implementation in Swift 3:
func areAnagrams(_ str1: String, _ str2: String) -> Bool {
return dictionaryMap(forString: str1) == dictionaryMap(forString: str2)
}
func dictionaryMap(forString str: String) -> [String : Int] {
var dict : [String : Int] = [:]
for var i in 0..<str.characters.count {
if let count = dict[str[i]] {
dict[str[i]] = count + 1
}else {
dict[str[i]] = 1
}
}
return dict
}
//To easily subscript characters
extension String {
subscript(i: Int) -> String {
return String(self[index(startIndex, offsetBy: i)])
}
}
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Scanner;
/**
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Finding Anagrams in the given dictionary. Anagrams are words that can be
* formed from other words Ex :The word "words" can be formed using the word
* "sword"
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Input : if choose option 2 first enter no of word want to compare second
* enter word ex:
*
* Enter choice : 1:To use Test Cases 2: To give input 2 Enter the number of
* words in dictionary
* 6
* viq
* khan
* zee
* khan
* am
*
* Dictionary : [ viq khan zee khan am]
* Anagrams 1:[khan, khan]
*
*/
public class Anagrams {
public static void main(String args[]) {
// User Input or just use the testCases
int choice;
#SuppressWarnings("resource")
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter choice : \n1:To use Test Cases 2: To give input");
choice = scan.nextInt();
switch (choice) {
case 1:
testCaseRunner();
break;
case 2:
userInput();
default:
break;
}
}
private static void userInput() {
#SuppressWarnings("resource")
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter the number of words in dictionary");
int number = scan.nextInt();
String dictionary[] = new String[number];
//
for (int i = 0; i < number; i++) {
dictionary[i] = scan.nextLine();
}
printAnagramsIn(dictionary);
}
/**
* provides a some number of dictionary of words
*/
private static void testCaseRunner() {
String dictionary[][] = { { "abc", "cde", "asfs", "cba", "edcs", "name" },
{ "name", "mane", "string", "trings", "embe" } };
for (int i = 0; i < dictionary.length; i++) {
printAnagramsIn(dictionary[i]);
}
}
/**
* Prints the set of anagrams found the give dictionary
*
* logic is sorting the characters in the given word and hashing them to the
* word. Data Structure: Hash[sortedChars] = word
*/
private static void printAnagramsIn(String[] dictionary) {
System.out.print("Dictionary : [");// + dictionary);
for (String each : dictionary) {
System.out.print(each + " ");
}
System.out.println("]");
//
Map<String, ArrayList<String>> map = new LinkedHashMap<String, ArrayList<String>>();
// review comment: naming convention: dictionary contains 'word' not
// 'each'
for (String each : dictionary) {
char[] sortedWord = each.toCharArray();
// sort dic value
Arrays.sort(sortedWord);
//input word
String sortedString = new String(sortedWord);
//
ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
if (map.keySet().contains(sortedString)) {
list = map.get(sortedString);
}
list.add(each);
map.put(sortedString, list);
}
// print anagram
int i = 1;
for (String each : map.keySet()) {
if (map.get(each).size() != 1) {
System.out.println("Anagrams " + i + ":" + map.get(each));
i++;
}
}
}
}
I just had an interview and 'SolutionA' was basically my solution.
Seems to hold.
It might also work to sum all characters, or the hashCodes of each character, but it would still be at least O(n).
/**
* Using HashMap
*
* O(a + b + b + b) = O(a + 3*b) = O( 4n ) if a and b are equal. Meaning O(n) in total.
*/
public static final class SolutionA {
//
private static boolean isAnagram(String a, String b) {
if ( a.length() != b.length() ) return false;
HashMap<Character, Integer> aa = toHistogram(a);
HashMap<Character, Integer> bb = toHistogram(b);
return isHistogramsEqual(aa, bb);
}
private static HashMap<Character, Integer> toHistogram(String characters) {
HashMap<Character, Integer> histogram = new HashMap<>();
int i = -1; while ( ++i < characters.length() ) {
histogram.compute(characters.charAt(i), (k, v) -> {
if ( v == null ) v = 0;
return v+1;
});
}
return histogram;
}
private static boolean isHistogramsEqual(HashMap<Character, Integer> a, HashMap<Character, Integer> b) {
for ( Map.Entry<Character, Integer> entry : b.entrySet() ) {
Integer aa = a.get(entry.getKey());
Integer bb = entry.getValue();
if ( !Objects.equals(aa, bb) ) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(isAnagram("abc", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abc", "cbaa"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abcc", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abcd", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("twelve plus one", "eleven plus two"));
}
}
I've provided a hashCode() based implementation as well. Seems to hold as well.
/**
* Using hashCode()
*
* O(a + b) minimum + character.hashCode() calculation, the latter might be cheap though. Native implementation.
*
* Risk for collision albeit small.
*/
public static final class SolutionB {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(isAnagram("abc", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abc", "cbaa"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abcc", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("abcd", "cba"));
System.out.println(isAnagram("twelve plus one", "eleven plus two"));
}
private static boolean isAnagram(String a, String b) {
if ( a.length() != b.length() ) return false;
return toHashcode(a) == toHashcode(b);
}
private static long toHashcode(String str) {
long sum = 0; int i = -1; while ( ++i < str.length() ) {
sum += Objects.hashCode( str.charAt(i) );
}
return sum;
}
}
in java we can also do it like this and its very simple logic
import java.util.*;
class Anagram
{
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception
{
Boolean FLAG=true;
Scanner sc= new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter 1st string");
String s1=sc.nextLine();
System.out.println("Enter 2nd string");
String s2=sc.nextLine();
int i,j;
i=s1.length();
j=s2.length();
if(i==j)
{
for(int k=0;k<i;k++)
{
for(int l=0;l<i;l++)
{
if(s1.charAt(k)==s2.charAt(l))
{
FLAG=true;
break;
}
else
FLAG=false;
}
}
}
else
FLAG=false;
if(FLAG)
System.out.println("Given Strings are anagrams");
else
System.out.println("Given Strings are not anagrams");
}
}
How about converting into the int value of the character and sum up :
If the value of sum are equals then they are anagram to each other.
def are_anagram1(s1, s2):
return [False, True][sum([ord(x) for x in s1]) == sum([ord(x) for x in s2])]
s1 = 'james'
s2 = 'amesj'
print are_anagram1(s1,s2)
This solution works only for 'A' to 'Z' and 'a' to 'z'.

Merge Sort a Linked List

I was recently brushing up on some fundamentals and found merge sorting a linked list to be a pretty good challenge. If you have a good implementation then show it off here.
Wonder why it should be big challenge as it is stated here, here is a straightforward implementation in Java with out any "clever tricks".
//The main function
public static Node merge_sort(Node head)
{
if(head == null || head.next == null)
return head;
Node middle = getMiddle(head); //get the middle of the list
Node left_head = head;
Node right_head = middle.next;
middle.next = null; //split the list into two halfs
return merge(merge_sort(left_head), merge_sort(right_head)); //recurse on that
}
//Merge subroutine to merge two sorted lists
public static Node merge(Node a, Node b)
{
Node dummyHead = new Node();
for(Node current = dummyHead; a != null && b != null; current = current.next;)
{
if(a.data <= b.data)
{
current.next = a;
a = a.next;
}
else
{
current.next = b;
b = b.next;
}
}
dummyHead.next = (a == null) ? b : a;
return dummyHead.next;
}
//Finding the middle element of the list for splitting
public static Node getMiddle(Node head)
{
if(head == null)
return head;
Node slow = head, fast = head;
while(fast.next != null && fast.next.next != null)
{
slow = slow.next;
fast = fast.next.next;
}
return slow;
}
A simpler/clearer implementation might be the recursive implementation, from which the NLog(N) execution time is more clear.
typedef struct _aList {
struct _aList* next;
struct _aList* prev; // Optional.
// some data
} aList;
aList* merge_sort_list_recursive(aList *list,int (*compare)(aList *one,aList *two))
{
// Trivial case.
if (!list || !list->next)
return list;
aList *right = list,
*temp = list,
*last = list,
*result = 0,
*next = 0,
*tail = 0;
// Find halfway through the list (by running two pointers, one at twice the speed of the other).
while (temp && temp->next)
{
last = right;
right = right->next;
temp = temp->next->next;
}
// Break the list in two. (prev pointers are broken here, but we fix later)
last->next = 0;
// Recurse on the two smaller lists:
list = merge_sort_list_recursive(list, compare);
right = merge_sort_list_recursive(right, compare);
// Merge:
while (list || right)
{
// Take from empty lists, or compare:
if (!right) {
next = list;
list = list->next;
} else if (!list) {
next = right;
right = right->next;
} else if (compare(list, right) < 0) {
next = list;
list = list->next;
} else {
next = right;
right = right->next;
}
if (!result) {
result=next;
} else {
tail->next=next;
}
next->prev = tail; // Optional.
tail = next;
}
return result;
}
NB: This has a Log(N) storage requirement for the recursion. Performance should be roughly comparable with the other strategy I posted. There is a potential optimisation here by running the merge loop while (list && right), and simple appending the remaining list (since we don't really care about the end of the lists; knowing that they're merged suffices).
Heavily based on the EXCELLENT code from: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/algorithms/listsort.html
Trimmed slightly, and tidied:
typedef struct _aList {
struct _aList* next;
struct _aList* prev; // Optional.
// some data
} aList;
aList *merge_sort_list(aList *list,int (*compare)(aList *one,aList *two))
{
int listSize=1,numMerges,leftSize,rightSize;
aList *tail,*left,*right,*next;
if (!list || !list->next) return list; // Trivial case
do { // For each power of two<=list length
numMerges=0,left=list;tail=list=0; // Start at the start
while (left) { // Do this list_len/listSize times:
numMerges++,right=left,leftSize=0,rightSize=listSize;
// Cut list into two halves (but don't overrun)
while (right && leftSize<listSize) leftSize++,right=right->next;
// Run through the lists appending onto what we have so far.
while (leftSize>0 || (rightSize>0 && right)) {
// Left empty, take right OR Right empty, take left, OR compare.
if (!leftSize) {next=right;right=right->next;rightSize--;}
else if (!rightSize || !right) {next=left;left=left->next;leftSize--;}
else if (compare(left,right)<0) {next=left;left=left->next;leftSize--;}
else {next=right;right=right->next;rightSize--;}
// Update pointers to keep track of where we are:
if (tail) tail->next=next; else list=next;
// Sort prev pointer
next->prev=tail; // Optional.
tail=next;
}
// Right is now AFTER the list we just sorted, so start the next sort there.
left=right;
}
// Terminate the list, double the list-sort size.
tail->next=0,listSize<<=1;
} while (numMerges>1); // If we only did one merge, then we just sorted the whole list.
return list;
}
NB: This is O(NLog(N)) guaranteed, and uses O(1) resources (no recursion, no stack, nothing).
One interesting way is to maintain a stack, and only merge if the list on the stack has the same number of elements, and otherwise push the list, until you run out of elements in the incoming list, and then merge up the stack.
The simplest is from
Gonnet + Baeza Yates Handbook of Algorithms. You call it with the number of sorted elements you want, which recursively gets bisected until it reaches a request for a size one list which you then just peel off the front of the original list. These all get merged up into a full sized sorted list.
[Note that the cool stack-based one in the first post is called the Online Mergesort and it gets the tiniest mention in an exercise in Knuth Vol 3]
Here's an alternative recursive version. This does not need to step along the list to split it: we supply a pointer to a head element (which is not part of the sort) and a length, and the recursive function returns a pointer to the end of the sorted list.
element* mergesort(element *head,long lengtho)
{
long count1=(lengtho/2), count2=(lengtho-count1);
element *next1,*next2,*tail1,*tail2,*tail;
if (lengtho<=1) return head->next; /* Trivial case. */
tail1 = mergesort(head,count1);
tail2 = mergesort(tail1,count2);
tail=head;
next1 = head->next;
next2 = tail1->next;
tail1->next = tail2->next; /* in case this ends up as the tail */
while (1) {
if(cmp(next1,next2)<=0) {
tail->next=next1; tail=next1;
if(--count1==0) { tail->next=next2; return tail2; }
next1=next1->next;
} else {
tail->next=next2; tail=next2;
if(--count2==0) { tail->next=next1; return tail1; }
next2=next2->next;
}
}
}
I'd been obsessing over optimizing clutter for this algorithm and below is what I've finally arrived at. Lot of other code on Internet and StackOverflow is horribly bad. There are people trying to get middle point of the list, doing recursion, having multiple loops for left over nodes, maintaining counts of ton of things - ALL of which is unnecessary. MergeSort naturally fits to linked list and algorithm can be beautiful and compact but it's not trivial to get to that state.
Below code maintains minimum number of variables and has minimum number of logical steps needed for the algorithm (i.e. without making code unmaintainable/unreadable) as far as I know. However I haven't tried to minimize LOC and kept as much white space as necessary to keep things readable. I've tested this code through fairly rigorous unit tests.
Note that this answer combines few techniques from other answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/3032462/207661. While the code is in C#, it should be trivial to convert in to C++, Java, etc.
SingleListNode<T> SortLinkedList<T>(SingleListNode<T> head) where T : IComparable<T>
{
int blockSize = 1, blockCount;
do
{
//Maintain two lists pointing to two blocks, left and right
SingleListNode<T> left = head, right = head, tail = null;
head = null; //Start a new list
blockCount = 0;
//Walk through entire list in blocks of size blockCount
while (left != null)
{
blockCount++;
//Advance right to start of next block, measure size of left list while doing so
int leftSize = 0, rightSize = blockSize;
for (;leftSize < blockSize && right != null; ++leftSize)
right = right.Next;
//Merge two list until their individual ends
bool leftEmpty = leftSize == 0, rightEmpty = rightSize == 0 || right == null;
while (!leftEmpty || !rightEmpty)
{
SingleListNode<T> smaller;
//Using <= instead of < gives us sort stability
if (rightEmpty || (!leftEmpty && left.Value.CompareTo(right.Value) <= 0))
{
smaller = left; left = left.Next; --leftSize;
leftEmpty = leftSize == 0;
}
else
{
smaller = right; right = right.Next; --rightSize;
rightEmpty = rightSize == 0 || right == null;
}
//Update new list
if (tail != null)
tail.Next = smaller;
else
head = smaller;
tail = smaller;
}
//right now points to next block for left
left = right;
}
//terminate new list, take care of case when input list is null
if (tail != null)
tail.Next = null;
//Lg n iterations
blockSize <<= 1;
} while (blockCount > 1);
return head;
}
Points of interest
There is no special handling for cases like null list of list of 1 etc required. These cases "just works".
Lot of "standard" algorithms texts have two loops to go over leftover elements to handle the case when one list is shorter than other. Above code eliminates need for it.
We make sure sort is stable
The inner while loop which is a hot spot evaluates 3 expressions per iteration on average which I think is minimum one can do.
Update: #ideasman42 has translated above code to C/C++ along with suggestions for fixing comments and bit more improvement. Above code is now up to date with these.
I decided to test the examples here, and also one more approach, originally written by Jonathan Cunningham in Pop-11. I coded all the approaches in C# and did a comparison with a range of different list sizes. I compared the Mono eglib approach by Raja R Harinath, the C# code by Shital Shah, the Java approach by Jayadev, the recursive and non-recursive versions by David Gamble, the first C code by Ed Wynn (this crashed with my sample dataset, I didn't debug), and Cunningham's version. Full code here: https://gist.github.com/314e572808f29adb0e41.git.
Mono eglib is based on a similar idea to Cunningham's and is of comparable speed, unless the list happens to be sorted already, in which case Cunningham's approach is much much faster (if its partially sorted, the eglib is slightly faster). The eglib code uses a fixed table to hold the merge sort recursion, whereas Cunningham's approach works by using increasing levels of recursion - so it starts out using no recursion, then 1-deep recursion, then 2-deep recursion and so on, according to how many steps are needed to do the sort. I find the Cunningham code a little easier to follow and there is no guessing involved in how big to make the recursion table, so it gets my vote. The other approaches I tried from this page were two or more times slower.
Here is the C# port of the Pop-11 sort:
/// <summary>
/// Sort a linked list in place. Returns the sorted list.
/// Originally by Jonathan Cunningham in Pop-11, May 1981.
/// Ported to C# by Jon Meyer.
/// </summary>
public class ListSorter<T> where T : IComparable<T> {
SingleListNode<T> workNode = new SingleListNode<T>(default(T));
SingleListNode<T> list;
/// <summary>
/// Sorts a linked list. Returns the sorted list.
/// </summary>
public SingleListNode<T> Sort(SingleListNode<T> head) {
if (head == null) throw new NullReferenceException("head");
list = head;
var run = GetRun(); // get first run
// As we progress, we increase the recursion depth.
var n = 1;
while (list != null) {
var run2 = GetSequence(n);
run = Merge(run, run2);
n++;
}
return run;
}
// Get the longest run of ordered elements from list.
// The run is returned, and list is updated to point to the
// first out-of-order element.
SingleListNode<T> GetRun() {
var run = list; // the return result is the original list
var prevNode = list;
var prevItem = list.Value;
list = list.Next; // advance to the next item
while (list != null) {
var comp = prevItem.CompareTo(list.Value);
if (comp > 0) {
// reached end of sequence
prevNode.Next = null;
break;
}
prevItem = list.Value;
prevNode = list;
list = list.Next;
}
return run;
}
// Generates a sequence of Merge and GetRun() operations.
// If n is 1, returns GetRun()
// If n is 2, returns Merge(GetRun(), GetRun())
// If n is 3, returns Merge(Merge(GetRun(), GetRun()),
// Merge(GetRun(), GetRun()))
// and so on.
SingleListNode<T> GetSequence(int n) {
if (n < 2) {
return GetRun();
} else {
n--;
var run1 = GetSequence(n);
if (list == null) return run1;
var run2 = GetSequence(n);
return Merge(run1, run2);
}
}
// Given two ordered lists this returns a list that is the
// result of merging the two lists in-place (modifying the pairs
// in list1 and list2).
SingleListNode<T> Merge(SingleListNode<T> list1, SingleListNode<T> list2) {
// we reuse a single work node to hold the result.
// Simplifies the number of test cases in the code below.
var prevNode = workNode;
while (true) {
if (list1.Value.CompareTo(list2.Value) <= 0) {
// list1 goes first
prevNode.Next = list1;
prevNode = list1;
if ((list1 = list1.Next) == null) {
// reached end of list1 - join list2 to prevNode
prevNode.Next = list2;
break;
}
} else { // same but for list2
prevNode.Next = list2;
prevNode = list2;
if ((list2 = list2.Next) == null) {
prevNode.Next = list1;
break;
}
}
}
// the result is in the back of the workNode
return workNode.Next;
}
}
Here is my implementation of Knuth's "List merge sort" (Algorithm 5.2.4L from Vol.3 of TAOCP, 2nd ed.). I'll add some comments at the end, but here's a summary:
On random input, it runs a bit faster than Simon Tatham's code (see Dave Gamble's non-recursive answer, with a link) but a bit slower than Dave Gamble's recursive code. It's harder to understand than either. At least in my implementation, it requires each element to have TWO pointers to elements. (An alternative would be one pointer and a boolean flag.) So, it's probably not a useful approach. However, one distinctive point is that it runs very fast if the input has long stretches that are already sorted.
element *knuthsort(element *list)
{ /* This is my attempt at implementing Knuth's Algorithm 5.2.4L "List merge sort"
from Vol.3 of TAOCP, 2nd ed. */
element *p, *pnext, *q, *qnext, head1, head2, *s, *t;
if(!list) return NULL;
L1: /* This is the clever L1 from exercise 12, p.167, solution p.647. */
head1.next=list;
t=&head2;
for(p=list, pnext=p->next; pnext; p=pnext, pnext=p->next) {
if( cmp(p,pnext) > 0 ) { t->next=NULL; t->spare=pnext; t=p; }
}
t->next=NULL; t->spare=NULL; p->spare=NULL;
head2.next=head2.spare;
L2: /* begin a new pass: */
t=&head2;
q=t->next;
if(!q) return head1.next;
s=&head1;
p=s->next;
L3: /* compare: */
if( cmp(p,q) > 0 ) goto L6;
L4: /* add p onto the current end, s: */
if(s->next) s->next=p; else s->spare=p;
s=p;
if(p->next) { p=p->next; goto L3; }
else p=p->spare;
L5: /* complete the sublist by adding q and all its successors: */
s->next=q; s=t;
for(qnext=q->next; qnext; q=qnext, qnext=q->next);
t=q; q=q->spare;
goto L8;
L6: /* add q onto the current end, s: */
if(s->next) s->next=q; else s->spare=q;
s=q;
if(q->next) { q=q->next; goto L3; }
else q=q->spare;
L7: /* complete the sublist by adding p and all its successors: */
s->next=p;
s=t;
for(pnext=p->next; pnext; p=pnext, pnext=p->next);
t=p; p=p->spare;
L8: /* is this end of the pass? */
if(q) goto L3;
if(s->next) s->next=p; else s->spare=p;
t->next=NULL; t->spare=NULL;
goto L2;
}
There's a non-recursive linked-list mergesort in mono eglib.
The basic idea is that the control-loop for the various merges parallels the bitwise-increment of a binary integer. There are O(n) merges to "insert" n nodes into the merge tree, and the rank of those merges corresponds to the binary digit that gets incremented. Using this analogy, only O(log n) nodes of the merge-tree need to be materialized into a temporary holding array.
A tested, working C++ version of single linked list, based on the highest voted answer.
singlelinkedlist.h:
#pragma once
#include <stdexcept>
#include <iostream>
#include <initializer_list>
namespace ythlearn{
template<typename T>
class Linkedlist{
public:
class Node{
public:
Node* next;
T elem;
};
Node head;
int _size;
public:
Linkedlist(){
head.next = nullptr;
_size = 0;
}
Linkedlist(std::initializer_list<T> init_list){
head.next = nullptr;
_size = 0;
for(auto s = init_list.begin(); s!=init_list.end(); s++){
push_left(*s);
}
}
int size(){
return _size;
}
bool isEmpty(){
return size() == 0;
}
bool isSorted(){
Node* n_ptr = head.next;
while(n_ptr->next != nullptr){
if(n_ptr->elem > n_ptr->next->elem)
return false;
n_ptr = n_ptr->next;
}
return true;
}
Linkedlist& push_left(T elem){
Node* n = new Node;
n->elem = elem;
n->next = head.next;
head.next = n;
++_size;
return *this;
}
void print(){
Node* loopPtr = head.next;
while(loopPtr != nullptr){
std::cout << loopPtr->elem << " ";
loopPtr = loopPtr->next;
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
void call_merge(){
head.next = merge_sort(head.next);
}
Node* merge_sort(Node* n){
if(n == nullptr || n->next == nullptr)
return n;
Node* middle = getMiddle(n);
Node* left_head = n;
Node* right_head = middle->next;
middle->next = nullptr;
return merge(merge_sort(left_head), merge_sort(right_head));
}
Node* getMiddle(Node* n){
if(n == nullptr)
return n;
Node* slow, *fast;
slow = fast = n;
while(fast->next != nullptr && fast->next->next != nullptr){
slow = slow->next;
fast = fast->next->next;
}
return slow;
}
Node* merge(Node* a, Node* b){
Node dummyHead;
Node* current = &dummyHead;
while(a != nullptr && b != nullptr){
if(a->elem < b->elem){
current->next = a;
a = a->next;
}else{
current->next = b;
b = b->next;
}
current = current->next;
}
current->next = (a == nullptr) ? b : a;
return dummyHead.next;
}
Linkedlist(const Linkedlist&) = delete;
Linkedlist& operator=(const Linkedlist&) const = delete;
~Linkedlist(){
Node* node_to_delete;
Node* ptr = head.next;
while(ptr != nullptr){
node_to_delete = ptr;
ptr = ptr->next;
delete node_to_delete;
}
}
};
}
main.cpp:
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
#include "singlelinkedlist.h"
using namespace std;
using namespace ythlearn;
int main(){
Linkedlist<int> l = {3,6,-5,222,495,-129,0};
l.print();
l.call_merge();
l.print();
assert(l.isSorted());
return 0;
}
Simplest Java Implementation:
Time Complexity: O(nLogn) n = number of nodes. Each iteration through the linked list doubles the size of the sorted smaller linked lists. For example, after the first iteration, the linked list will be sorted into two halves. After the second iteration, the linked list will be sorted into four halves. It will keep sorting up to the size of the linked list. This will take O(logn) doublings of the small linked lists' sizes to reach the original linked list size. The n in nlogn is there because each iteration of the linked list will take time proportional to the number of nodes in the originial linked list.
class Node {
int data;
Node next;
Node(int d) {
data = d;
}
}
class LinkedList {
Node head;
public Node mergesort(Node head) {
if(head == null || head.next == null) return head;
Node middle = middle(head), middle_next = middle.next;
middle.next = null;
Node left = mergesort(head), right = mergesort(middle_next), node = merge(left, right);
return node;
}
public Node merge(Node first, Node second) {
Node node = null;
if (first == null) return second;
else if (second == null) return first;
else if (first.data <= second.data) {
node = first;
node.next = merge(first.next, second);
} else {
node = second;
node.next = merge(first, second.next);
}
return node;
}
public Node middle(Node head) {
if (head == null) return head;
Node second = head, first = head.next;
while(first != null) {
first = first.next;
if (first != null) {
second = second.next;
first = first.next;
}
}
return second;
}
}
Another example of a non-recursive merge sort for linked lists, where the functions are not part of a class. This example code and HP / Microsoft std::list::sort both use the same basic algorithm. A bottom up, non-recursive, merge sort that uses a small (26 to 32) array of pointers to the first nodes of a list, where array[i] is either 0 or points to a list of size 2 to the power i. On my system, Intel 2600K 3.4ghz, it can sort 4 million nodes with 32 bit unsigned integers as data in about 1 second.
typedef struct NODE_{
struct NODE_ * next;
uint32_t data;
}NODE;
NODE * MergeLists(NODE *, NODE *); /* prototype */
/* sort a list using array of pointers to list */
/* aList[i] == NULL or ptr to list with 2^i nodes */
#define NUMLISTS 32 /* number of lists */
NODE * SortList(NODE *pList)
{
NODE * aList[NUMLISTS]; /* array of lists */
NODE * pNode;
NODE * pNext;
int i;
if(pList == NULL) /* check for empty list */
return NULL;
for(i = 0; i < NUMLISTS; i++) /* init array */
aList[i] = NULL;
pNode = pList; /* merge nodes into array */
while(pNode != NULL){
pNext = pNode->next;
pNode->next = NULL;
for(i = 0; (i < NUMLISTS) && (aList[i] != NULL); i++){
pNode = MergeLists(aList[i], pNode);
aList[i] = NULL;
}
if(i == NUMLISTS) /* don't go beyond end of array */
i--;
aList[i] = pNode;
pNode = pNext;
}
pNode = NULL; /* merge array into one list */
for(i = 0; i < NUMLISTS; i++)
pNode = MergeLists(aList[i], pNode);
return pNode;
}
/* merge two already sorted lists */
/* compare uses pSrc2 < pSrc1 to follow the STL rule */
/* of only using < and not <= */
NODE * MergeLists(NODE *pSrc1, NODE *pSrc2)
{
NODE *pDst = NULL; /* destination head ptr */
NODE **ppDst = &pDst; /* ptr to head or prev->next */
if(pSrc1 == NULL)
return pSrc2;
if(pSrc2 == NULL)
return pSrc1;
while(1){
if(pSrc2->data < pSrc1->data){ /* if src2 < src1 */
*ppDst = pSrc2;
pSrc2 = *(ppDst = &(pSrc2->next));
if(pSrc2 == NULL){
*ppDst = pSrc1;
break;
}
} else { /* src1 <= src2 */
*ppDst = pSrc1;
pSrc1 = *(ppDst = &(pSrc1->next));
if(pSrc1 == NULL){
*ppDst = pSrc2;
break;
}
}
}
return pDst;
}
Visual Studio 2015 changed std::list::sort to be based on iterators instead of lists, and also changed to a top down merge sort, which requires the overhead of scanning. I initially assumed that the switch to top down was needed to work with the iterators, but when it was asked about again, I investigated this and determined that the switch to the slower top down method was not needed, and bottom up could be implemented using the same iterator based logic. The answer in this link explains this and provide a stand-alone example as well as a replacement for VS2019's std::list::sort() in the include file "list".
`std::list<>::sort()` - why the sudden switch to top-down strategy?
This is the entire Piece of code which shows how we can create linklist in java and sort it using Merge sort. I am creating node in MergeNode class and there is another class MergesortLinklist where there is divide and merge logic.
class MergeNode {
Object value;
MergeNode next;
MergeNode(Object val) {
value = val;
next = null;
}
MergeNode() {
value = null;
next = null;
}
public Object getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(Object value) {
this.value = value;
}
public MergeNode getNext() {
return next;
}
public void setNext(MergeNode next) {
this.next = next;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "MergeNode [value=" + value + ", next=" + next + "]";
}
}
public class MergesortLinkList {
MergeNode head;
static int totalnode;
public MergeNode getHead() {
return head;
}
public void setHead(MergeNode head) {
this.head = head;
}
MergeNode add(int i) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
if (head == null) {
head = new MergeNode(i);
// System.out.println("head value is "+head);
return head;
}
MergeNode temp = head;
while (temp.next != null) {
temp = temp.next;
}
temp.next = new MergeNode(i);
return head;
}
MergeNode mergesort(MergeNode nl1) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
if (nl1.next == null) {
return nl1;
}
int counter = 0;
MergeNode temp = nl1;
while (temp != null) {
counter++;
temp = temp.next;
}
System.out.println("total nodes " + counter);
int middle = (counter - 1) / 2;
temp = nl1;
MergeNode left = nl1, right = nl1;
int leftindex = 0, rightindex = 0;
if (middle == leftindex) {
right = left.next;
}
while (leftindex < middle) {
leftindex++;
left = left.next;
right = left.next;
}
left.next = null;
left = nl1;
System.out.println(left.toString());
System.out.println(right.toString());
MergeNode p1 = mergesort(left);
MergeNode p2 = mergesort(right);
MergeNode node = merge(p1, p2);
return node;
}
MergeNode merge(MergeNode p1, MergeNode p2) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
MergeNode L = p1;
MergeNode R = p2;
int Lcount = 0, Rcount = 0;
MergeNode tempnode = null;
while (L != null && R != null) {
int val1 = (int) L.value;
int val2 = (int) R.value;
if (val1 > val2) {
if (tempnode == null) {
tempnode = new MergeNode(val2);
R = R.next;
} else {
MergeNode store = tempnode;
while (store.next != null) {
store = store.next;
}
store.next = new MergeNode(val2);
R = R.next;
}
} else {
if (tempnode == null) {
tempnode = new MergeNode(val1);
L = L.next;
} else {
MergeNode store = tempnode;
while (store.next != null) {
store = store.next;
}
store.next = new MergeNode(val1);
L = L.next;
}
}
}
MergeNode handle = tempnode;
while (L != null) {
while (handle.next != null) {
handle = handle.next;
}
handle.next = L;
L = null;
}
// Copy remaining elements of L[] if any
while (R != null) {
while (handle.next != null) {
handle = handle.next;
}
handle.next = R;
R = null;
}
System.out.println("----------------sorted value-----------");
System.out.println(tempnode.toString());
return tempnode;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MergesortLinkList objsort = new MergesortLinkList();
MergeNode n1 = objsort.add(9);
MergeNode n2 = objsort.add(7);
MergeNode n3 = objsort.add(6);
MergeNode n4 = objsort.add(87);
MergeNode n5 = objsort.add(16);
MergeNode n6 = objsort.add(81);
MergeNode n7 = objsort.add(21);
MergeNode n8 = objsort.add(16);
MergeNode n9 = objsort.add(99);
MergeNode n10 = objsort.add(31);
MergeNode val = objsort.mergesort(n1);
System.out.println("===============sorted values=====================");
while (val != null) {
System.out.println(" value is " + val.value);
val = val.next;
}
}
}
I don't see any C++ solutions posted here. So, here it goes. Hope it helps someone.
class Solution {
public:
ListNode *merge(ListNode *left, ListNode *right){
ListNode *head = NULL, *temp = NULL;
// Find which one is the head node for the merged list
if(left->val <= right->val){
head = left, temp = left;
left = left->next;
}
else{
head = right, temp = right;
right = right->next;
}
while(left && right){
if(left->val <= right->val){
temp->next = left;
temp = left;
left = left->next;
}
else{
temp->next = right;
temp = right;
right = right->next;
}
}
// If some elements still left in the left or the right list
if(left)
temp->next = left;
if(right)
temp->next = right;
return head;
}
ListNode* sortList(ListNode* head){
if(!head || !head->next)
return head;
// Find the length of the list
int length = 0;
ListNode *temp = head;
while(temp){
length++;
temp = temp->next;
}
// Reset temp
temp = head;
// Store half of it in left and the other half in right
// Create two lists and sort them
ListNode *left = temp, *prev = NULL;
int i = 0, mid = length / 2;
// Left list
while(i < mid){
prev = temp;
temp = temp->next;
i++;
}
// The end of the left list should point to NULL
if(prev)
prev->next = NULL;
// Right list
ListNode *right = temp;
// Sort left list
ListNode *sortedLeft = sortList(left);
// Sort right list
ListNode *sortedRight = sortList(right);
// Merge them
ListNode *sortedList = merge(sortedLeft, sortedRight);
return sortedList;
}
};
Here is the Java Implementation of Merge Sort on Linked List:
Time Complexity: O(n.logn)
Space Complexity: O(1) - Merge sort implementation on Linked List avoids the O(n) auxiliary storage cost normally associated with the
algorithm
class Solution
{
public ListNode mergeSortList(ListNode head)
{
if(head == null || head.next == null)
return head;
ListNode mid = getMid(head), second_head = mid.next; mid.next = null;
return merge(mergeSortList(head), mergeSortList(second_head));
}
private ListNode merge(ListNode head1, ListNode head2)
{
ListNode result = new ListNode(0), current = result;
while(head1 != null && head2 != null)
{
if(head1.val < head2.val)
{
current.next = head1;
head1 = head1.next;
}
else
{
current.next = head2;
head2 = head2.next;
}
current = current.next;
}
if(head1 != null) current.next = head1;
if(head2 != null) current.next = head2;
return result.next;
}
private ListNode getMid(ListNode head)
{
ListNode slow = head, fast = head.next;
while(fast != null && fast.next != null)
{
slow = slow.next;
fast = fast.next.next;
}
return slow;
}
}
Hey I know that this is a bit late an answer but got a fast simple one.
The code is in F# but will goes in any language. Since this is an uncommen language of the ML family, I'll give some point to enhance the readability.
F# are nesting done by tabulating. the last line of code in a function (nested part) are the return value. (x, y) is a tuple, x::xs is a list of the head x and tail xs (where xs can be empty), |> take the result of last line an pipe it as argument to the expression right of it (readability enhancing) and last (fun args -> some expression) are a lambda function.
// split the list into a singleton list
let split list = List.map (fun x -> [x]) lst
// takes to list and merge them into a sorted list
let sort lst1 lst2 =
// nested function to hide accumulator
let rec s acc pair =
match pair with
// empty list case, return the sorted list
| [], [] -> List.rev acc
| xs, [] | [], xs ->
// one empty list case,
// append the rest of xs onto acc and return the sorted list
List.fold (fun ys y -> y :: ys) acc xs
|> List.rev
// general case
| x::xs, y::ys ->
match x < y with
| true -> // cons x onto the accumulator
s (x::acc) (xs,y::ys)
| _ ->
// cons y onto the accumulator
s (y::acc) (x::xs,ys)
s [] (lst1, lst2)
let msort lst =
let rec merge acc lst =
match lst with
| [] ->
match acc with
| [] -> [] // empty list case
| _ -> merge [] acc
| x :: [] -> // single list case (x is a list)
match acc with
| [] -> x // since acc are empty there are only x left, hence x are the sorted list.
| _ -> merge [] (x::acc) // still need merging.
| x1 :: x2 :: xs ->
// merge the lists x1 and x2 and add them to the acummulator. recursiv call
merge (sort x1 x2 :: acc) xs
// return part
split list // expand to singleton list list
|> merge [] // merge and sort recursively.
It is important to notice that this is fully tail recursive so no possibility of stack overflow, and by first expanding the list to a singleton list list in one go we, lower the constant factor on the worst cost. Since merge are working on list of list, we can recursively merge and sort the inner list until we get to the fix point where all inner list are sorted into one list and then we return that list, hence collapsing from a list list to a list again.
Here is the solution using Swift Programming Language.
//Main MergeSort Function
func mergeSort(head: Node?) -> Node? {
guard let head = head else { return nil }
guard let _ = head.next else { return head }
let middle = getMiddle(head: head)
let left = head
let right = middle.next
middle.next = nil
return merge(left: mergeSort(head: left), right: mergeSort(head: right))
}
//Merge Function
func merge(left: Node?, right: Node?) -> Node? {
guard let left = left, let right = right else { return nil}
let dummyHead: Node = Node(value: 0)
var current: Node? = dummyHead
var currentLeft: Node? = left
var currentRight: Node? = right
while currentLeft != nil && currentRight != nil {
if currentLeft!.value < currentRight!.value {
current?.next = currentLeft
currentLeft = currentLeft!.next
} else {
current?.next = currentRight
currentRight = currentRight!.next
}
current = current?.next
}
if currentLeft != nil {
current?.next = currentLeft
}
if currentRight != nil {
current?.next = currentRight
}
return dummyHead.next!
}
And here are the Node Class & getMiddle Method
class Node {
//Node Class which takes Integers as value
var value: Int
var next: Node?
init(value: Int) {
self.value = value
}
}
func getMiddle(head: Node) -> Node {
guard let nextNode = head.next else { return head }
var slow: Node = head
var fast: Node? = head
while fast?.next?.next != nil {
slow = slow.next!
fast = fast!.next?.next
}
return slow
}
public int[] msort(int[] a) {
if (a.Length > 1) {
int min = a.Length / 2;
int max = min;
int[] b = new int[min];
int[] c = new int[max]; // dividing main array into two half arrays
for (int i = 0; i < min; i++) {
b[i] = a[i];
}
for (int i = min; i < min + max; i++) {
c[i - min] = a[i];
}
b = msort(b);
c = msort(c);
int x = 0;
int y = 0;
int z = 0;
while (b.Length != y && c.Length != z) {
if (b[y] < c[z]) {
a[x] = b[y];
//r--
x++;
y++;
} else {
a[x] = c[z];
x++;
z++;
}
}
while (b.Length != y) {
a[x] = b[y];
x++;
y++;
}
while (c.Length != z) {
a[x] = c[z];
x++;
z++;
}
}
return a;
}

Resources