Given 2 elements n, s and an array A of size m, where s is initial position which lies between 1 <= s <= n, our task is to perform m operations to s and in each operation we either make s = s + A[i] or s = s - A[i], and we have to print all the values which are possible after the m operation and all those value should lie between 1 - n (inclusive).
Important Note: If during an operation we get a value s < 1 or s > n,
we don't go further with that value of s.
I solved the problem using BFS, but the problem is BFS approach is not optimal here, can someone suggest any other more optimal approach to me or an algorithm will greatly help.
For example:-
If n = 3, s = 3, and A = {1, 1, 1}
3
/ \
operation 1: 2 4 (we don’t proceed with 4 as it is > n)
/ \ / \
operation 2: 1 3 3 5
/ \ / \ / \ / \
operation 3: 0 2 2 4 2 4 4 6
So final values reachable by following above rules are 2 and 2 (that is two times 2). we don't consider the third two as it has an intermediate state which is > n ( same case applicable if < 1).
There is this dynamic programming solution, which runs in O(nm) time and requires O(n) space.
First establish a boolean array called reachable, initialize it to false everywhere except for reachable[s], which is true.
This array now represents whether a number is reachable in 0 steps. Now for every i from 1 to m, we update the array so that reachable[x] represents whether the number x is reachable in i steps. This is easy: x is reachable in i steps if and only if either x - A[i] or x + A[i] is reachable in i - 1 steps.
In the end, the array becomes the final result you want.
EDIT: pseudo-code here.
// initialization:
for x = 1 to n:
r[x] = false
r[s] = true
// main loop:
for k = 1 to m:
for x = 1 to n:
last_r[x] = r[x]
for x = 1 to n:
r[x] = (last_r[x + A[k]] or last_r[x - A[k]])
Here last_r[x] is by convention false if x is not in the range [1 .. n].
If you want to maintain the number of ways that each number can be reached, then you do the following changes:
Change the array r to an integer array;
In the initialization, initialize all r[x] to 0, except r[s] to 1;
In the main loop, change the key line to:
r[x] = last_r[x + A[k]] + last_r[x - A[k]]
Related
For any given value N we have to find the number of ways to reach the top while using steps of 1,2 or 3 but we can use 3 steps only once.
for example if n=7
then possible ways could be
[1,1,1,1,1,1,1]
[1,1,1,1,1,2]
etc but we cannot have [3,3,1] or [1,3,3]
I have managed to solve the general case without the constraint of using 3 only once with dynamic programming as it forms a sort of fibonacci series
def countWays(n) :
res = [0] * (n + 1)
res[0] = 1
res[1] = 1
res[2] = 2
for i in range(3, n + 1) :
res[i] = res[i - 1] + res[i - 2] + res[i - 3]
return res[n]
how do I figure out the rest of it?
Let res0[n] be the number of ways to reach n steps without using a 3-step, and let res1[n] be the number of ways to reach n steps after having used a 3-step.
res0[i] and res1[i] are easily calculated from the previous values, in a manner similar to your existing code.
This is an example of a pretty common technique that is often called "graph layering". See, for example: Shortest path in a maze with health loss
Let us first ignore the three steps here. Imagine that we can only use steps of one and two. Then that means that for a given number n. We know that we can solve this with n steps of 1 (one solution), or n-2 steps of 1 and one step of 2 (n-1 solutions); or with n-4 steps of 1 and two steps of 2, which has n-2×n-3/2 solutions, and so on.
The number of ways to do that is related to the Fibonacci sequence. It is clear that the number of ways to construct 0 is one: just the empty list []. It is furthermore clear that the number of ways to construct 1 is one as well: a list [1]. Now we can proof that the number of ways Wn to construct n is the sum of the ways Wn-1 to construct n-1 plus the number of ways Wn-2 to construct n-2. The proof is that we can add a one at the end for each way to construct n-1, and we can add 2 at the end to construct n-2. There are no other options, since otherwise we would introduce duplicates.
The number of ways Wn is thus the same as the Fibonacci number Fn+1 of n+1. We can thus implement a Fibonacci function with caching like:
cache = [0, 1, 1, 2]
def fib(n):
for i in range(len(cache), n+1):
cache.append(cache[i-2] + cache[i-1])
return cache[n]
So now how can we fix this for a given step of three? We can here use a divide and conquer method. We know that if we use a step of three, it means that we have:
1 2 1 … 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 … 1
\____ ____/ \_______ _____/
v v
sum is m sum is n-m-3
So we can iterate over m, and each time multiply the number of ways to construct the left part (fib(m+1)) and the right part (fib(n-m-3+1)) we here can range with m from 0 to n-3 (both inclusive):
def count_ways(n):
total = 0
for m in range(0, n-2):
total += fib(m+1) * fib(n-m-2)
return total + fib(n+1)
or more compact:
def count_ways(n):
return fib(n+1) + sum(fib(m+1) * fib(n-m-2) for m in range(0, n-2))
This gives us:
>>> count_ways(0) # ()
1
>>> count_ways(1) # (1)
1
>>> count_ways(2) # (2) (1 1)
2
>>> count_ways(3) # (3) (2 1) (1 2) (1 1 1)
4
>>> count_ways(4) # (3 1) (1 3) (2 2) (2 1 1) (1 2 1) (1 1 2) (1 1 1 1)
7
I am taking a challenge online and came across this question, where I need to find the number of ways to split a number 'n' into 'k' unequal summands. For example,
3 - Can be split into 2 and 1.
4 - Can be split into 3 and 1. Note: We cannot do 2 and 2 because, they are equal
5 - (3,2) and (4,1). and so on..
Is there any algorithm for this.
Code in python:
def minArgument(x):
s = 0
i = 1
while s < x:
s += i
i += 1
return i - 1
def maxArgument(x):
return x - 1
def number_of_sumsDP(M, K):
lowerLimit = minArgument(M)
if K < lowerLimit:
return 0
else:
if K - 1 >= M // 2:
return 1 + number_of_sumsDP(M, K - 1)
else:
return 0
def number_of_sums_simple(n):
if n % 2 == 0:
return n // 2 - 1
else:
return n // 2
for i in range(2, 100):
if number_of_sumsDP(i, maxArgument(i)) != number_of_sums_simple(i):
print("mistake")
print("works")
First thought dynamic programming (number_of_sumsDP(M, K)) - number of sums is equal to number of sums with the biggest possible number (subject - 1) and sums without it (with obvious stop when number is less than min arg - it doesn't make sense to add up to 10 with numbers less than 4 [minArgument] and when we start repeating ourself [if K - 1 < M // 2]).
After few prints it leads to even simpler and much efficient algorithm:
number_of_sums_simple - return division in integers by 2 when odd and the same minus one when even; as a proof I convinced myself that it works.
I am trying to do this using recursion with memoization ,I have identified the following base cases .
I) when n==k there is only one group with all the balls.
II) when k>n then no groups can have atleast k balls,hence zero.
I am unable to move forward from here.How can this be done?
As an illustration when n=6 ,k=2
(2,2,2)
(4,2)
(3,3)
(6)
That is 4 different groupings can be formed.
This can be represented by the two dimensional recursive formula described below:
T(0, k) = 1
T(n, k) = 0 n < k, n != 0
T(n, k) = T(n-k, k) + T(n, k + 1)
^ ^
There is a box with k balls, No box with k balls, advance to next k
put them
In the above, T(n,k) is the number of distributions of n balls such that each box gets at least k.
And the trick is to think of k as the lowest possible number of balls, and seperate the problem to two scenarios: Is there a box with exactly k balls (if so, place them and recurse with n-k balls), or not (and then, recurse with minimal value of k+1, and same number of balls).
Example, to calculate your example: T(6,2) (6 balls, minimum 2 per box):
T(6,2) = T(4,2) + T(6,3)
T(4,2) = T(2,2) + T(4,3) = T(0,2) + T(2,3) + T(1,3) + T(4,4) =
= T(0,2) + T(2,3) + T(1,3) + T(0,4) + T(4,5) =
= 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0
= 2
T(6,3) = T(3,3) + T(6,4) = T(0,3) + T(3,4) + T(2,4) + T(6,5)
= T(0,3) + T(3,4) + T(2,4) + T(1,5) + T(6,6) =
= T(0,3) + T(3,4) + T(2,4) + T(1,5) + T(0,6) + T(6,7) =
= 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0
= 2
T(6,2) = T(4,2) + T(6,3) = 2 + 2 = 4
Using Dynamic Programming, it can be calculated in O(n^2) time.
This case can be solved pretty simple:
Number of buckets
The maximum-number of buckets b can be determined as follows:
b = roundDown(n / k)
Each valid distribution can use at most b buckets.
Number of distributions with x buckets
For a given number of buckets the number of distribution can be found pretty simple:
Distribute k balls to each bucket. Find the number of ways to distribute the remaining balls (r = n - k * x) to x buckets:
total_distributions(x) = bincoefficient(x , n - k * x)
EDIT: this will onyl work, if order matters. Since it doesn't for the question, we can use a few tricks here:
Each distribution can be mapped to a sequence of numbers. E.g.: d = {d1 , d2 , ... , dx}. We can easily generate all of these sequences starting with the "first" sequence {r , 0 , ... , 0} and subsequently moving 1s from the left to the right. So the next sequence would look like this: {r - 1 , 1 , ... , 0}. If only sequences matching d1 >= d2 >= ... >= dx are generated, no duplicates will be generated. This constraint can easily be used to optimize this search a bit: We can only move a 1 from da to db (with a = b - 1), if da - 1 >= db + 1 is given, since otherwise the constraint that the array is sorted is violated. The 1s to move are always the rightmost that can be moved. Another way to think of this would be to view r as a unary number and simply split that string into groups such that each group is atleast as long as it's successor.
countSequences(x)
sequence[]
sequence[0] = r
sequenceCount = 1
while true
int i = findRightmostMoveable(sequence)
if i == -1
return sequenceCount
sequence[i] -= 1
sequence[i + 1] -= 1
sequenceCount
findRightmostMoveable(sequence)
for i in [length(sequence) - 1 , 0)
if sequence[i - 1] > sequence[i] + 1
return i - 1
return -1
Actually findRightmostMoveable could be optimized a bit, if we look at the structure-transitions of the sequence (to be more precise the difference between two elements of the sequence). But to be honest I'm by far too lazy to optimize this further.
Putting the pieces together
range(1 , roundDown(n / k)).map(b -> countSequences(b)).sum()
Given a set of N numbers x1, x2, ..., xN, how can you find an ordering of them to maximize the minimum absolute difference between adjacent numbers? This is probably an NP hard problem, so any efficient approximate method will do.
Let's say you've defined your data as x_i for i=1, ..., n. We can define binary variables p_{ij} for i=1, ..., n, and j=1, ..., n, which are 1 if number i is in sorted order j and 0 otherwise. Adding a variable e, our optimization model would be something like:
The constraints with the absolute values ensure that e (our minimum gap) does not exceed the gap between each pair of adjacent elements in our sorted sequence. However, absolute values aren't allowed in linear optimization models, and in general you need to add a binary variable to model an absolute value being greater than or equal to some other value. So let's add binary variable r_j, j=2, ..., n, and replace our problematic constraints:
Here M is a large number; 2(max(x) - min(x)) should be sufficiently large. Now, we're ready to actually implement this model. You can use any MIP solver; I'll use the lpSolveAPI in R because it's free and easily accessible. p_{ij} are stored in variables 1 through n^2; r_j are stored in variables n^2+1 through n^2+n-1; and e is stored in variable n^2+n.
x = 1:5
n = length(x)
M = 2*(max(x) - min(x))
library(lpSolveAPI)
mod = make.lp(0, n^2+n)
set.type(mod, 1:(n^2+n-1), "binary")
set.objfn(mod, c(rep(0, n^2+n-1), 1))
lp.control(mod, sense="max")
for (j in 2:n) {
base.cons <- rep(0, n^2+n)
base.cons[seq(j-1, by=n, length.out=n)] = x
base.cons[seq(j, by=n, length.out=n)] = -x
base.cons[n^2+j-1] = M
first.cons = base.cons
first.cons[n^2+n] = -1
add.constraint(mod, first.cons, ">=", 0)
second.cons = -base.cons
second.cons[n^2+n] = -1
add.constraint(mod, second.cons, ">=", -M)
}
for (j in 1:n) {
this.cons = rep(0, n^2+n)
this.cons[seq(j, by=n, length.out=n)] = 1
add.constraint(mod, this.cons, "=", 1)
}
for (i in 1:n) {
this.cons = rep(0, n^2+n)
this.cons[seq((i-1)*n+1, i*n)] = 1
add.constraint(mod, this.cons, "=", 1)
}
Now we're ready to solve the model:
solve(mod)
# [1] 0
get.objective(mod)
# [1] 2
get.variables(mod)
# [1] 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2
And lastly we can extract the sorted list using the x_i and p_{ij} variables:
sapply(1:n, function(j) sum(get.variables(mod)[seq(j, by=n, length.out=n)]*x))
# [1] 1 3 5 2 4
Let's say I have a number of base 3, 1211. How could I check this number is divisible by 2 without converting it back to base 10?
Update
The original problem is from TopCoder
The digits 3 and 9 share an interesting property. If you take any multiple of 3 and sum its digits, you get another multiple of 3. For example, 118*3 = 354 and 3+5+4 = 12, which is a multiple of 3. Similarly, if you take any multiple of 9 and sum its digits, you get another multiple of 9. For example, 75*9 = 675 and 6+7+5 = 18, which is a multiple of 9. Call any digit for which this property holds interesting, except for 0 and 1, for which the property holds trivially.
A digit that is interesting in one base is not necessarily interesting in another base. For example, 3 is interesting in base 10 but uninteresting in base 5. Given an int base, your task is to return all the interesting digits for that base in increasing order. To determine whether a particular digit is interesting or not, you need not consider all multiples of the digit. You can be certain that, if the property holds for all multiples of the digit with fewer than four digits, then it also holds for multiples with more digits. For example, in base 10, you would not need to consider any multiples greater than 999.
Notes
- When base is greater than 10, digits may have a numeric value greater than 9. Because integers are displayed in base 10 by default, do not be alarmed when such digits appear on your screen as more than one decimal digit. For example, one of the interesting digits in base 16 is 15.
Constraints
- base is between 3 and 30, inclusive.
This is my solution:
class InterestingDigits {
public:
vector<int> digits( int base ) {
vector<int> temp;
for( int i = 2; i <= base; ++i )
if( base % i == 1 )
temp.push_back( i );
return temp;
}
};
The trick was well explained here : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/17242/how-does-base-of-a-number-relate-to-modulos-of-its-each-individual-digit
Thanks,
Chan
If your number k is in base three, then you can write it as
k = a0 3^n + a1 3^{n-1} + a2 3^{n-2} + ... + an 3^0
where a0, a1, ..., an are the digits in the base-three representation.
To see if the number is divisible by two, you're interested in whether the number, modulo 2, is equal to zero. Well, k mod 2 is given by
k mod 2 = (a0 3^n + a1 3^{n-1} + a2 3^{n-2} + ... + an 3^0) mod 2
= (a0 3^n) mod 2 + (a1 3^{n-1}) mod 2 + ... + an (3^0) mod 2
= (a0 mod 2) (3^n mod 2) + ... + (an mod 2) (3^0 mod 2)
The trick here is that 3^i = 1 (mod 2), so this expression is
k mod 2 = (a0 mod 2) + (a1 mod 2) + ... + (an mod 2)
In other words, if you sum up the digits of the ternary representation and get that this value is divisible by two, then the number itself must be divisible by two. To make this even cooler, since the only ternary digits are 0, 1, and 2, this is equivalent to asking whether the number of 1s in the ternary representation is even!
More generally, though, if you have a number in base m, then that number is divisible by m - 1 iff the sum of the digits is divisible by m. This is why you can check if a number in base 10 is divisible by 9 by summing the digits and seeing if that value is divisible by nine.
You can always build a finite automaton for any base and any divisor:
Normally to compute the value n of a string of digits in base b
you iterate over the digits and do
n = (n * b) + d
for each digit d.
Now if you are interested in divisibility you do this modulo m instead:
n = ((n * b) + d) % m
Here n can take at most m different values. Take these as states of a finite automaton, and compute the transitions depending on the digit d according to that formula. The accepting state is the one where the remainder is 0.
For your specific case we have
n == 0, d == 0: n = ((0 * 3) + 0) % 2 = 0
n == 0, d == 1: n = ((0 * 3) + 1) % 2 = 1
n == 0, d == 2: n = ((0 * 3) + 2) % 2 = 0
n == 1, d == 0: n = ((1 * 3) + 0) % 2 = 1
n == 1, d == 1: n = ((1 * 3) + 1) % 2 = 0
n == 1, d == 2: n = ((1 * 3) + 2) % 2 = 1
which shows that you can just sum the digits 1 modulo 2 and ignore any digits 0 or 2.
Add all the digits together (or even just count the ones) - if the answer is odd, the number is odd; if it's even, the nmber is even.
How does that work? Each digit from the number contributes 0, 1 or 2 times (1, 3, 9, 27, ...). A 0 or a 2 adds an even number, so no effect on the oddness/evenness (parity) of the number as a whole. A 1 adds one of the powers of 3, which is always odd, and so flips the parity). And we start from 0 (even). So by counting whether the number of flips is odd or even we can tell whether the number itself is.
I'm not sure on what CPU you have a number in base-3, but the normal way to do this is to perform a modulus/remainder operation.
if (n % 2 == 0) {
// divisible by 2, so even
} else {
// odd
}
How to implement the modulus operator is going to depend on how you're storing your base-3 number. The simplest to code will probably be to implement normal pencil-and-paper long division, and get the remainder from that.
0 2 2 0
_______
2 ⟌ 1 2 1 1
0
---
1 2
1 1
-----
1 1
1 1
-----
0 1 <--- remainder = 1 (so odd)
(This works regardless of base, there are "tricks" for base-3 as others have mentioned)
Same as in base 10, for your example:
1. Find the multiple of 2 that's <= 1211, that's 1210 (see below how to achieve it)
2. Substract 1210 from 1211, you get 1
3. 1 is < 10, thus 1211 isn't divisible by 2
how to achieve 1210:
1. starts with 2
2. 2 + 2 = 11
3. 11 + 2 = 20
4. 20 + 2 = 22
5. 22 + 2 = 101
6. 101 + 2 = 110
7. 110 + 2 = 112
8. 112 + 2 = 121
9. 121 + 2 = 200
10. 200 + 2 = 202
... // repeat until you get the biggest number <= 1211
it's basically the same as base 10 it's just the round up happens on 3 instead of 10.