Below is the problem assignment using tree recursion approach:
Maximum Subsequence
A subsequence of a number is a series of (not necessarily contiguous) digits of the number. For example, 12345 has subsequences that include 123, 234, 124, 245, etc. Your task is to get the maximum subsequence below a certain length.
def max_subseq(n, l):
"""
Return the maximum subsequence of length at most l that can be found in the given number n.
For example, for n = 20125 and l = 3, we have that the subsequences are
2
0
1
2
5
20
21
22
25
01
02
05
12
15
25
201
202
205
212
215
225
012
015
025
125
and of these, the maxumum number is 225, so our answer is 225.
>>> max_subseq(20125, 3)
225
>>> max_subseq(20125, 5)
20125
>>> max_subseq(20125, 6) # note that 20125 == 020125
20125
>>> max_subseq(12345, 3)
345
>>> max_subseq(12345, 0) # 0 is of length 0
0
>>> max_subseq(12345, 1)
5
"""
"*** YOUR CODE HERE ***"
There are two key insights for this problem
You need to split into the cases where the ones digit is used and the one where it is not. In the case where it is, we want to reduce l since we used one of the digits, and in the case where it isn't we do not.
In the case where we are using the ones digit, you need to put the digit back onto the end, and the way to attach a digit d to the end of a number n is 10 * n + d.
I could not understand the insights of this problem, mentioned below 2 points:
split into the cases where the ones digit is used and the one where it is not
In the case where we are using the ones digit, you need to put the digit back onto the end
My understanding of this problem:
Solution to this problem looks to generate all subsequences upto l, pseudo code looks like:
digitSequence := strconv.Itoa(n) // "20125"
printSubSequence = func(digitSequence string, currenSubSequenceSize int) { // digitSequence is "20125" and currenSubSequenceSize is say 3
printNthSubSequence(digitSequence, currenSubSequenceSize) + printSubSequence(digitSequence, currenSubSequenceSize-1)
}
where printNthSubSequence prints subsequences for (20125, 3) or (20125, 2) etc...
Finding max_subseq among all these sequences then becomes easy
Can you help me understand the insights given in this problem, with an example(say 20125, 1)? here is the complete question
Something like this? As the instructions suggest, try it with and without the current digit:
function f(s, i, l){
if (i + 1 <= l)
return Number(s.substr(0, l));
if (!l)
return 0;
return Math.max(
// With
Number(s[i]) + 10 * f(s, i - 1, l - 1),
// Without
f(s, i - 1, l)
);
}
var input = [
['20125', 3],
['20125', 5],
['20125', 6],
['12345', 3],
['12345', 0],
['12345', 1]
];
for (let [s, l] of input){
console.log(s + ', l: ' + l);
console.log(f(s, s.length-1, l));
console.log('');
}
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).
This is a puzzle i think of since last night. I have come up with a solution but it's not efficient so I want to see if there is better idea.
The puzzle is this:
given positive integers N and T, you will need to have:
for i in [1, T], A[i] from { -1, 0, 1 }, such that SUM(A) == N
additionally, the prefix sum of A shall be [0, N], while when the prefix sum PSUM[A, t] == N, it's necessary to have for i in [t + 1, T], A[i] == 0
here prefix sum PSUM is defined to be: PSUM[A, t] = SUM(A[i] for i in [1, t])
the puzzle asks how many such A's exist given fixed N and T
for example, when N = 2, T = 4, following As work:
1 1 0 0
1 -1 1 1
0 1 1 0
but following don't:
-1 1 1 1 # prefix sum -1
1 1 -1 1 # non-0 following a prefix sum == N
1 1 1 -1 # prefix sum > N
following python code can verify such rule, when given N as expect and an instance of A as seq(some people may feel easier reading code than reading literal description):
def verify(expect, seq):
s = 0
for j, i in enumerate(seq):
s += i
if s < 0:
return False
if s == expect:
break
else:
return s == expect
for k in range(j + 1, len(seq)):
if seq[k] != 0:
return False
return True
I have coded up my solution, but it's too slow. Following is mine:
I decompose the problem into two parts, a part without -1 in it(only {0, 1} and a part with -1.
so if SOLVE(N, T) is the correct answer, I define a function SOLVE'(N, T, B), where a positive B allows me to extend prefix sum to be in the interval of [-B, N] instead of [0, N]
so in fact SOLVE(N, T) == SOLVE'(N, T, 0).
so I soon realized the solution is actually:
have the prefix of A to be some valid {0, 1} combination with positive length l, and with o 1s in it
at position l + 1, I start to add 1 or more -1s and use B to track the number. the maximum will be B + o or depend on the number of slots remaining in A, whichever is less.
recursively call SOLVE'(N, T, B)
in the previous N = 2, T = 4 example, in one of the search case, I will do:
let the prefix of A be [1], then we have A = [1, -, -, -].
start add -1. here i will add only one: A = [1, -1, -, -].
recursive call SOLVE', here i will call SOLVE'(2, 2, 0) to solve the last two spots. here it will return [1, 1] only. then one of the combinations yields [1, -1, 1, 1].
but this algorithm is too slow.
I am wondering how can I optimize it or any different way to look at this problem that can boost the performance up?(I will just need the idea, not impl)
EDIT:
some sample will be:
T N RESOLVE(N, T)
3 2 3
4 2 7
5 2 15
6 2 31
7 2 63
8 2 127
9 2 255
10 2 511
11 2 1023
12 2 2047
13 2 4095
3 3 1
4 3 4
5 3 12
6 3 32
7 3 81
8 3 200
9 3 488
10 3 1184
11 3 2865
12 3 6924
13 3 16724
4 4 1
5 4 5
6 4 18
an exponential time solution will be following in general(in python):
import itertools
choices = [-1, 0, 1]
print len([l for l in itertools.product(*([choices] * t)) if verify(n, l)])
An observation: assuming that n is at least 1, every solution to your stated problem ends in something of the form [1, 0, ..., 0]: i.e., a single 1 followed by zero or more 0s. The portion of the solution prior to that point is a walk that lies entirely in [0, n-1], starts at 0, ends at n-1, and takes fewer than t steps.
Therefore you can reduce your original problem to a slightly simpler one, namely that of determining how many t-step walks there are in [0, n] that start at 0 and end at n (where each step can be 0, +1 or -1, as before).
The following code solves the simpler problem. It uses the lru_cache decorator to cache intermediate results; this is in the standard library in Python 3, or there's a recipe you can download for Python 2.
from functools import lru_cache
#lru_cache()
def walks(k, n, t):
"""
Return the number of length-t walks in [0, n]
that start at 0 and end at k. Each step
in the walk adds -1, 0 or 1 to the current total.
Inputs should satisfy 0 <= k <= n and 0 <= t.
"""
if t == 0:
# If no steps allowed, we can only get to 0,
# and then only in one way.
return k == 0
else:
# Count the walks ending in 0.
total = walks(k, n, t-1)
if 0 < k:
# ... plus the walks ending in 1.
total += walks(k-1, n, t-1)
if k < n:
# ... plus the walks ending in -1.
total += walks(k+1, n, t-1)
return total
Now we can use this function to solve your problem.
def solve(n, t):
"""
Find number of solutions to the original problem.
"""
# All solutions stick at n once they get there.
# Therefore it's enough to find all walks
# that lie in [0, n-1] and take us to n-1 in
# fewer than t steps.
return sum(walks(n-1, n-1, i) for i in range(t))
Result and timings on my machine for solve(10, 100):
In [1]: solve(10, 100)
Out[1]: 250639233987229485923025924628548154758061157
In [2]: %timeit solve(10, 100)
1000 loops, best of 3: 964 µs per loop
You are given N blocks of height 1…N. In how many ways can you arrange these blocks in a row such that when viewed from left you see only L blocks (rest are hidden by taller blocks) and when seen from right you see only R blocks? Example given N=3, L=2, R=1 there is only one arrangement {2, 1, 3} while for N=3, L=2, R=2 there are two ways {1, 3, 2} and {2, 3, 1}.
How should we solve this problem by programming? Any efficient ways?
This is a counting problem, not a construction problem, so we can approach it using recursion. Since the problem has two natural parts, looking from the left and looking from the right, break it up and solve for just one part first.
Let b(N, L, R) be the number of solutions, and let f(N, L) be the number of arrangements of N blocks so that L are visible from the left. First think about f because it's easier.
APPROACH 1
Let's get the initial conditions and then go for recursion. If all are to be visible, then they must be ordered increasingly, so
f(N, N) = 1
If there are suppose to be more visible blocks than available blocks, then nothing we can do, so
f(N, M) = 0 if N < M
If only one block should be visible, then put the largest first and then the others can follow in any order, so
f(N,1) = (N-1)!
Finally, for the recursion, think about the position of the tallest block, say N is in the kth spot from the left. Then choose the blocks to come before it in (N-1 choose k-1) ways, arrange those blocks so that exactly L-1 are visible from the left, and order the N-k blocks behind N it in any you like, giving:
f(N, L) = sum_{1<=k<=N} (N-1 choose k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * (N-k)!
In fact, since f(x-1,L-1) = 0 for x<L, we may as well start k at L instead of 1:
f(N, L) = sum_{L<=k<=N} (N-1 choose k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * (N-k)!
Right, so now that the easier bit is understood, let's use f to solve for the harder bit b. Again, use recursion based on the position of the tallest block, again say N is in position k from the left. As before, choose the blocks before it in N-1 choose k-1 ways, but now think about each side of that block separately. For the k-1 blocks left of N, make sure that exactly L-1 of them are visible. For the N-k blocks right of N, make sure that R-1 are visible and then reverse the order you would get from f. Therefore the answer is:
b(N,L,R) = sum_{1<=k<=N} (N-1 choose k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * f(N-k, R-1)
where f is completely worked out above. Again, many terms will be zero, so we only want to take k such that k-1 >= L-1 and N-k >= R-1 to get
b(N,L,R) = sum_{L <= k <= N-R+1} (N-1 choose k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * f(N-k, R-1)
APPROACH 2
I thought about this problem again and found a somewhat nicer approach that avoids the summation.
If you work the problem the opposite way, that is think of adding the smallest block instead of the largest block, then the recurrence for f becomes much simpler. In this case, with the same initial conditions, the recurrence is
f(N,L) = f(N-1,L-1) + (N-1) * f(N-1,L)
where the first term, f(N-1,L-1), comes from placing the smallest block in the leftmost position, thereby adding one more visible block (hence L decreases to L-1), and the second term, (N-1) * f(N-1,L), accounts for putting the smallest block in any of the N-1 non-front positions, in which case it is not visible (hence L stays fixed).
This recursion has the advantage of always decreasing N, though it makes it more difficult to see some formulas, for example f(N,N-1) = (N choose 2). This formula is fairly easy to show from the previous formula, though I'm not certain how to derive it nicely from this simpler recurrence.
Now, to get back to the original problem and solve for b, we can also take a different approach. Instead of the summation before, think of the visible blocks as coming in packets, so that if a block is visible from the left, then its packet consists of all blocks right of it and in front of the next block visible from the left, and similarly if a block is visible from the right then its packet contains all blocks left of it until the next block visible from the right. Do this for all but the tallest block. This makes for L+R packets. Given the packets, you can move one from the left side to the right side simply by reversing the order of the blocks. Therefore the general case b(N,L,R) actually reduces to solving the case b(N,L,1) = f(N,L) and then choosing which of the packets to put on the left and which on the right. Therefore we have
b(N,L,R) = (L+R choose L) * f(N,L+R)
Again, this reformulation has some advantages over the previous version. Putting these latter two formulas together, it's much easier to see the complexity of the overall problem. However, I still prefer the first approach for constructing solutions, though perhaps others will disagree. All in all it just goes to show there's more than one good way to approach the problem.
What's with the Stirling numbers?
As Jason points out, the f(N,L) numbers are precisely the (unsigned) Stirling numbers of the first kind. One can see this immediately from the recursive formulas for each. However, it's always nice to be able to see it directly, so here goes.
The (unsigned) Stirling numbers of the First Kind, denoted S(N,L) count the number of permutations of N into L cycles. Given a permutation written in cycle notation, we write the permutation in canonical form by beginning the cycle with the largest number in that cycle and then ordering the cycles increasingly by the first number of the cycle. For example, the permutation
(2 6) (5 1 4) (3 7)
would be written in canonical form as
(5 1 4) (6 2) (7 3)
Now drop the parentheses and notice that if these are the heights of the blocks, then the number of visible blocks from the left is exactly the number of cycles! This is because the first number of each cycle blocks all other numbers in the cycle, and the first number of each successive cycle is visible behind the previous cycle. Hence this problem is really just a sneaky way to ask you to find a formula for Stirling numbers.
well, just as an empirical solution for small N:
blocks.py:
import itertools
from collections import defaultdict
def countPermutation(p):
n = 0
max = 0
for block in p:
if block > max:
n += 1
max = block
return n
def countBlocks(n):
count = defaultdict(int)
for p in itertools.permutations(range(1,n+1)):
fwd = countPermutation(p)
rev = countPermutation(reversed(p))
count[(fwd,rev)] += 1
return count
def printCount(count, n, places):
for i in range(1,n+1):
for j in range(1,n+1):
c = count[(i,j)]
if c > 0:
print "%*d" % (places, count[(i,j)]),
else:
print " " * places ,
print
def countAndPrint(nmax, places):
for n in range(1,nmax+1):
printCount(countBlocks(n), n, places)
print
and sample output:
blocks.countAndPrint(10)
1
1
1
1 1
1 2
1
2 3 1
2 6 3
3 3
1
6 11 6 1
6 22 18 4
11 18 6
6 4
1
24 50 35 10 1
24 100 105 40 5
50 105 60 10
35 40 10
10 5
1
120 274 225 85 15 1
120 548 675 340 75 6
274 675 510 150 15
225 340 150 20
85 75 15
15 6
1
720 1764 1624 735 175 21 1
720 3528 4872 2940 875 126 7
1764 4872 4410 1750 315 21
1624 2940 1750 420 35
735 875 315 35
175 126 21
21 7
1
5040 13068 13132 6769 1960 322 28 1
5040 26136 39396 27076 9800 1932 196 8
13068 39396 40614 19600 4830 588 28
13132 27076 19600 6440 980 56
6769 9800 4830 980 70
1960 1932 588 56
322 196 28
28 8
1
40320 109584 118124 67284 22449 4536 546 36 1
40320 219168 354372 269136 112245 27216 3822 288 9
109584 354372 403704 224490 68040 11466 1008 36
118124 269136 224490 90720 19110 2016 84
67284 112245 68040 19110 2520 126
22449 27216 11466 2016 126
4536 3822 1008 84
546 288 36
36 9
1
You'll note a few obvious (well, mostly obvious) things from the problem statement:
the total # of permutations is always N!
with the exception of N=1, there is no solution for L,R = (1,1): if a count in one direction is 1, then it implies the tallest block is on that end of the stack, so the count in the other direction has to be >= 2
the situation is symmetric (reverse each permutation and you reverse the L,R count)
if p is a permutation of N-1 blocks and has count (Lp,Rp), then the N permutations of block N inserted in each possible spot can have a count ranging from L = 1 to Lp+1, and R = 1 to Rp + 1.
From the empirical output:
the leftmost column or topmost row (where L = 1 or R = 1) with N blocks is the sum of the
rows/columns with N-1 blocks: i.e. in #PengOne's notation,
b(N,1,R) = sum(b(N-1,k,R-1) for k = 1 to N-R+1
Each diagonal is a row of Pascal's triangle, times a constant factor K for that diagonal -- I can't prove this, but I'm sure someone can -- i.e.:
b(N,L,R) = K * (L+R-2 choose L-1) where K = b(N,1,L+R-1)
So the computational complexity of computing b(N,L,R) is the same as the computational complexity of computing b(N,1,L+R-1) which is the first column (or row) in each triangle.
This observation is probably 95% of the way towards an explicit solution (the other 5% I'm sure involves standard combinatoric identities, I'm not too familiar with those).
A quick check with the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences shows that b(N,1,R) appears to be OEIS sequence A094638:
A094638 Triangle read by rows: T(n,k) =|s(n,n+1-k)|, where s(n,k) are the signed Stirling numbers of the first kind (1<=k<=n; in other words, the unsigned Stirling numbers of the first kind in reverse order).
1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 6, 11, 6, 1, 10, 35, 50, 24, 1, 15, 85, 225, 274, 120, 1, 21, 175, 735, 1624, 1764, 720, 1, 28, 322, 1960, 6769, 13132, 13068, 5040, 1, 36, 546, 4536, 22449, 67284, 118124, 109584, 40320, 1, 45, 870, 9450, 63273, 269325, 723680, 1172700
As far as how to efficiently compute the Stirling numbers of the first kind, I'm not sure; Wikipedia gives an explicit formula but it looks like a nasty sum. This question (computing Stirling #s of the first kind) shows up on MathOverflow and it looks like O(n^2), as PengOne hypothesizes.
Based on #PengOne answer, here is my Javascript implementation:
function g(N, L, R) {
var acc = 0;
for (var k=1; k<=N; k++) {
acc += comb(N-1, k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * f(N-k, R-1);
}
return acc;
}
function f(N, L) {
if (N==L) return 1;
else if (N<L) return 0;
else {
var acc = 0;
for (var k=1; k<=N; k++) {
acc += comb(N-1, k-1) * f(k-1, L-1) * fact(N-k);
}
return acc;
}
}
function comb(n, k) {
return fact(n) / (fact(k) * fact(n-k));
}
function fact(n) {
var acc = 1;
for (var i=2; i<=n; i++) {
acc *= i;
}
return acc;
}
$("#go").click(function () {
alert(g($("#N").val(), $("#L").val(), $("#R").val()));
});
Here is my construction solution inspired by #PengOne's ideas.
import itertools
def f(blocks, m):
n = len(blocks)
if m > n:
return []
if m < 0:
return []
if n == m:
return [sorted(blocks)]
maximum = max(blocks)
blocks = list(set(blocks) - set([maximum]))
results = []
for k in range(0, n):
for left_set in itertools.combinations(blocks, k):
for left in f(left_set, m - 1):
rights = itertools.permutations(list(set(blocks) - set(left)))
for right in rights:
results.append(list(left) + [maximum] + list(right))
return results
def b(n, l, r):
blocks = range(1, n + 1)
results = []
maximum = max(blocks)
blocks = list(set(blocks) - set([maximum]))
for k in range(0, n):
for left_set in itertools.combinations(blocks, k):
for left in f(left_set, l - 1):
other = list(set(blocks) - set(left))
rights = f(other, r - 1)
for right in rights:
results.append(list(left) + [maximum] + list(right))
return results
# Sample
print b(4, 3, 2) # -> [[1, 2, 4, 3], [1, 3, 4, 2], [2, 3, 4, 1]]
We derive a general solution F(N, L, R) by examining a specific testcase: F(10, 4, 3).
We first consider 10 in the leftmost possible position, the 4th ( _ _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ ).
Then we find the product of the number of valid sequences in the left and in the right of 10.
Next, we'll consider 10 in the 5th slot, calculate another product and add it to the previous one.
This process will go on until 10 is in the last possible slot, the 8th.
We'll use the variable named pos to keep track of N's position.
Now suppose pos = 6 ( _ _ _ _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ ). In the left of 10, there are 9C5 = (N-1)C(pos-1) sets of numbers to be arranged.
Since only the order of these numbers matters, we could look at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
To construct a sequence with these numbers so that 3 = L-1 of them are visible from the left, we can begin by placing 5 in the leftmost possible slot ( _ _ 5 _ _ ) and follow similar steps to what we did before.
So if F were defined recursively, it could be used here.
The only difference now is that the order of numbers in the right of 5 is immaterial.
To resolve this issue, we'll use a signal, INF (infinity), for R to indicate its unimportance.
Turning to the right of 10, there will be 4 = N-pos numbers left.
We first consider 4 in the last possible slot, position 2 = R-1 from the right ( _ _ 4 _ ).
Here what appears in the left of 4 is immaterial.
But counting arrangements of 4 blocks with the mere condition that 2 of them should be visible from the right is no different than counting arrangements of the same blocks with the mere condition that 2 of them should be visible from the left.
ie. instead of counting sequences like 3 1 4 2, one can count sequences like 2 4 1 3
So the number of valid arrangements in the right of 10 is F(4, 2, INF).
Thus the number of arrangements when pos == 6 is 9C5 * F(5, 3, INF) * F(4, 2, INF) = (N-1)C(pos-1) * F(pos-1, L-1, INF)* F(N-pos, R-1, INF).
Similarly, in F(5, 3, INF), 5 will be considered in a succession of slots with L = 2 and so on.
Since the function calls itself with L or R reduced, it must return a value when L = 1, that is F(N, 1, INF) must be a base case.
Now consider the arrangement _ _ _ _ _ 6 7 10 _ _.
The only slot 5 can take is the first, and the following 4 slots may be filled in any manner; thus F(5, 1, INF) = 4!.
Then clearly F(N, 1, INF) = (N-1)!.
Other (trivial) base cases and details could be seen in the C implementation below.
Here is a link for testing the code
#define INF UINT_MAX
long long unsigned fact(unsigned n) { return n ? n * fact(n-1) : 1; }
unsigned C(unsigned n, unsigned k) { return fact(n) / (fact(k) * fact(n-k)); }
unsigned F(unsigned N, unsigned L, unsigned R)
{
unsigned pos, sum = 0;
if(R != INF)
{
if(L == 0 || R == 0 || N < L || N < R) return 0;
if(L == 1) return F(N-1, R-1, INF);
if(R == 1) return F(N-1, L-1, INF);
for(pos = L; pos <= N-R+1; ++pos)
sum += C(N-1, pos-1) * F(pos-1, L-1, INF) * F(N-pos, R-1, INF);
}
else
{
if(L == 1) return fact(N-1);
for(pos = L; pos <= N; ++pos)
sum += C(N-1, pos-1) * F(pos-1, L-1, INF) * fact(N-pos);
}
return sum;
}