The problem is to find the contiguous subarray within an array (containing at least one number) which has the largest product.
For example, given the array [2,3,-2,4],
the contiguous subarray [2,3] has the largest product 6.
Why does the following work? Can anyone provide any insight on how to prove its correctness?
if(nums == null || nums.Length == 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Invalid input");
}
int max = nums[0];
int min = nums[0];
int result = nums[0];
for(int i = 1; i < nums.Length; i++)
{
int prev_max = max;
int prev_min = min;
max = Math.Max(nums[i],Math.Max(prev_max*nums[i], prev_min*nums[i]));
min = Math.Min(nums[i],Math.Min(prev_max*nums[i], prev_min*nums[i]));
result = Math.Max(result, max);
}
return result;
Start from the logic-side to understand how to solve the problem. There are two relevant traits for each subarray to consider:
If it contains a 0, the product of the subarray is aswell 0.
If the subarray contains an odd number of negative values, it's total value is negative aswell, otherwise positive (or 0, considering 0 as a positive value).
Now we can start off with the algorithm itself:
Rule 1: zeros
Since a 0 zeros out the product of the subarray, the subarray of the solution mustn't contain a 0, unless only negative values and 0 are contained in the input. This can be achieved pretty simple, since max and min are both reset to 0, as soon as a 0 is encountered in the array:
max = Math.Max(0 , Math.Max(prev_max * 0 , prev_min * 0));
min = Math.Min(0 , Math.Min(prev_max * 0 , prev_min * 0));
Will logically evaluate to 0, no matter what the so far input is.
arr: 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
result: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
min: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
max: 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
//non-zero values don't matter for Rule 1, so I just used 1
Rule 2: negative numbers
With Rule 1, we've already implicitly splitted the array into subarrays, such that a subarray consists of either a single 0, or multiple non-zero values. Now the task is to find the largest possible product inside that subarray (I'll refer to that as array from here on).
If the number of negative values in the array is even, the entire problem becomes pretty trivial: just multiply all values in the array and the result is the maximum-product of the array. For an odd number of negative values there are two possible cases:
The array contains only a single negative value: In that case either the subarray with all values with smaller index than the negative value or the subarray with all values with larger index than the negative value becomes the subarray with the maximum-value
The array contains at least 3 negative values: In that case we have to eliminate either the first negative number and all of it's predecessors, or the last negative number and all of it's successors.
Now let's have a look at the code:
max = Math.Max(nums[i] , Math.Max(prev_max * nums[i] , prev_min * nums[i]));
min = Math.Min(nums[i] , Math.Min(prev_max * nums[i] , prev_min * nums[i]));
Case 1: the evaluation of min is actually irrelevant, since the sign of the product of the array will only flip once, for the negative value. As soon as the negative number is encountered (= nums[i]), max will be nums[i], since both max and min are at least 1 and thus multiplication with nums[i] results in a number <= nums[i]. And for the first number after the negative number nums[i + 1], max will be nums[i + 1] again. Since the so far found maximum is made persistent in result (result = Math.Max(result, max);) after each step, this will automatically result in the correct result for that array.
arr: 2 3 2 -4 4 5
result: 2 6 12 12 12 20
max: 2 6 12 -4 4 20
//Omitted min, since it's irrelevant here.
Case 2: Here min becomes relevant too. Before we encounter the first negative value, min is the smallest number encountered so far in the array. After we encounter the first positive element in the array, the value turns negative. We continue to build both products (min and max) and swap them each time a negative value is encountered and keep updating result. When the last negative value of the array is encountered, result will hold the value of the subarray that eliminates the last negative value and it's successor. After the last negative value, max will be the product of the subarray that eliminates the first negative value and it's predecessors and min becomes irrelevant. Now we simply continue to multiply max with the remaining values in the array and update result until the end of the array is reached.
arr: 2 3 -4 3 -2 5 -6 3
result: 2 6 6 6 144 770 770 770
min: 2 6 -24 -72 -6 -30 -4620 ...
max: 2 6 -4 3 144 770 180 540
//min becomes irrelevant after the last negative value
Putting the pieces together
Since min and max are reset every time we encounter a 0, we can easily reuse them for each subarray that doesn't contain a 0. Thus Rule 1 is applied implicitly without interfering with Rule 2. Since result isn't reset each time a new subarray is inspected, the value will be kept persistent over all runs. Thus this algorithm works.
Hope this is understandable (To be honest, I doubt it and will try to improve the answer, if any questions appear). Sry for that monstrous answer.
Lets take assume the contiguous subarray, which produces the maximal product, is a[i], a[i+1], ..., a[j]. Since it is the array with the largest product, it is also the one suffix of a[0], a[1], ..., a[j], that produces the largest product.
The idea of your given algorithm is the following: For every prefix-array a[0], ..., a[j] find the largest suffix array. Out of these suffix arrays, take the maximal.
At the beginning, the smallest and biggest suffix-product are simply nums[0]. Then it iterates over all other numbers in the array. The largest suffix-array is always build in one of three ways. It's just the last numbers nums[i], it's the largest suffix-product of the shortened list multiplied by the last number (if nums[i] > 0), or it's the smallest (< 0) suffix-product multiplied by the last number (if nums[i] < 0). (*)
Using the helper variable result, you store the maximal such suffix-product you found so far.
(*) This fact is quite easy to proof. If you have a different case, for instance there exists a different suffix-product that produces a bigger number, than together with the last number nums[i] you create an even bigger suffix, which would be a contradiction.
Related
Problem Statement:
We are given
A set of T numbers S1, S2,....ST
An integer called Range
This means S1 can take on (2*Range+1) values (S1-Range,S1-Range+1,...S1, S1+1,....S1+Range)
Similarly S2, ...ST can take on 2*Range+1 values
Problem 1: How do I enumerate all the possible sequences? I.e all the (2*Range-1)^T sequences (S1-Range,S2,...ST), S1-Range+1,S2,...ST), ....., (S1, S2-Range,S3,....ST) etc
Problem 2: How do I only list the sequences whose sum is S1+S2+...+ST?
For problem 1: The approach I am considering is to do a
for (i=0; i<pow(Range,T);i++)
{
Sequences that can be derived from i are
1. {Si + i mod pow(Range,i)}
2. {Si - i mod pow(Range,i)}
}
Any other more elegant solution?
Also, any ideas for problem 2?
For #1, one way is to think of it like how you increment a number. You increment the last digit, and when it overflows you set it back to initial value (0) and increment the next digit.
So, create an array of size T, then initialize elements to (S1-Range, S2-Range, ..., ST-Range). Print it.
Now increment last value to ST-Range+1. Print it. Keep incrementing and printing until you reach ST+Range. When trying to increment, reset back to ST-Range, then move one position left and increment that. Repeat if that overflows too. If moving all the way left, you're done, otherwise print it.
// Input: T, S[T], Range
create V[T]
for (i in 1..T):
V[i] = S[i] - Range
loop forever {
print V
i = T
V[i]++
while V[i] > S[i] + Range {
V[i] = S[i] - Range
i--
if i < 1:
return // we're done
V[i]++
}
}
For #2, it's a bit different. For the description, I'm going to ignore the values of S, and focus of the delta (-Range, ..., 0, ..., +Range) for each position, calling it D.
Since sum(D)=0, the initial set of values are (-Range, -Range, ..., +Range, +Range). If T is even, first half are -Range, and second half are +Range. If T is odd, then middle value is 0.
Now look at how you want the iterations to go:
-2 -2 0 2 2
-2 -2 1 1 2
-2 -2 1 2 1
-2 -2 2 0 2 (A)
-2 -2 2 1 1
-2 -2 2 2 0
-2 -1 -1 2 2
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2 -1 0 2 1
-2 -1 1 0 2
The logic here is that you skip the last digit, since it's always a function of the other digits. You increment the right-most digit that can be incremented, and reset the digits to the right of it to the lower possible values that will give sum(D)=0.
Logic is a bit more complicated, so I'll let you have some fun writing it. ;-)
A good helper method thought, would be a method to reset digits after a certain position to their lowest possible value, given a start delta. You can then use it to initialize the array to begin with by calling reset(1, 0), i.e. reset positions 1..T using a starting delta of 0.
Then, when you increment D[3] to 2 in the step marked A above, you call reset(4, -2), i.e. reset positions 4..5 using a starting delta of -2. With max value of 2 (Range) for last digit, then means D[4] cannot be lower than 0.
given a sorted array of distinct integers, what is the minimum number of steps required to make the integers contiguous? Here the condition is that: in a step , only one element can be changed and can be either increased or decreased by 1 . For example, if we have 2,4,5,6 then '2' can be made '3' thus making the elements contiguous(3,4,5,6) .Hence the minimum steps here is 1 . Similarly for the array: 2,4,5,8:
Step 1: '2' can be made '3'
Step 2: '8' can be made '7'
Step 3: '7' can be made '6'
Thus the sequence now is 3,4,5,6 and the number of steps is 3.
I tried as follows but am not sure if its correct?
//n is the number of elements in array a
int count=a[n-1]-a[0]-1;
for(i=1;i<=n-2;i++)
{
count--;
}
printf("%d\n",count);
Thanks.
The intuitive guess is that the "center" of the optimal sequence will be the arithmetic average, but this is not the case. Let's find the correct solution with some vector math:
Part 1: Assuming the first number is to be left alone (we'll deal with this assumption later), calculate the differences, so 1 12 3 14 5 16-1 2 3 4 5 6 would yield 0 -10 0 -10 0 -10.
sidenote: Notice that a "contiguous" array by your implied definition would be an increasing arithmetic sequence with difference 1. (Note that there are other reasonable interpretations of your question: some people may consider 5 4 3 2 1 to be contiguous, or 5 3 1 to be contiguous, or 1 2 3 2 3 to be contiguous. You also did not specify if negative numbers should be treated any differently.)
theorem: The contiguous numbers must lie between the minimum and maximum number. [proof left to reader]
Part 2: Now returning to our example, assuming we took the 30 steps (sum(abs(0 -10 0 -10 0 -10))=30) required to turn 1 12 3 14 5 16 into 1 2 3 4 5 6. This is one correct answer. But 0 -10 0 -10 0 -10+c is also an answer which yields an arithmetic sequence of difference 1, for any constant c. In order to minimize the number of "steps", we must pick an appropriate c. In this case, each time we increase or decrease c, we increase the number of steps by N=6 (the length of the vector). So for example if we wanted to turn our original sequence 1 12 3 14 5 16 into 3 4 5 6 7 8 (c=2), then the differences would have been 2 -8 2 -8 2 -8, and sum(abs(2 -8 2 -8 2 -8))=30.
Now this is very clear if you could picture it visually, but it's sort of hard to type out in text. First we took our difference vector. Imagine you drew it like so:
4|
3| *
2| * |
1| | | *
0+--+--+--+--+--*
-1| |
-2| *
We are free to "shift" this vector up and down by adding or subtracting 1 from everything. (This is equivalent to finding c.) We wish to find the shift which minimizes the number of | you see (the area between the curve and the x-axis). This is NOT the average (that would be minimizing the standard deviation or RMS error, not the absolute error). To find the minimizing c, let's think of this as a function and consider its derivative. If the differences are all far away from the x-axis (we're trying to make 101 112 103 114 105 116), it makes sense to just not add this extra stuff, so we shift the function down towards the x-axis. Each time we decrease c, we improve the solution by 6. Now suppose that one of the *s passes the x axis. Each time we decrease c, we improve the solution by 5-1=4 (we save 5 steps of work, but have to do 1 extra step of work for the * below the x-axis). Eventually when HALF the *s are past the x-axis, we can NO LONGER IMPROVE THE SOLUTION (derivative: 3-3=0). (In fact soon we begin to make the solution worse, and can never make it better again. Not only have we found the minimum of this function, but we can see it is a global minimum.)
Thus the solution is as follows: Pretend the first number is in place. Calculate the vector of differences. Minimize the sum of the absolute value of this vector; do this by finding the median OF THE DIFFERENCES and subtracting that off from the differences to obtain an improved differences-vector. The sum of the absolute value of the "improved" vector is your answer. This is O(N) The solutions of equal optimality will (as per the above) always be "adjacent". A unique solution exists only if there are an odd number of numbers; otherwise if there are an even number of numbers, AND the median-of-differences is not an integer, the equally-optimal solutions will have difference-vectors with corrective factors of any number between the two medians.
So I guess this wouldn't be complete without a final example.
input: 2 3 4 10 14 14 15 100
difference vector: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-2 3 4 10 14 14 15 100 = 0 0 0 -5 -8 -7 -7 -91
note that the medians of the difference-vector are not in the middle anymore, we need to perform an O(N) median-finding algorithm to extract them...
medians of difference-vector are -5 and -7
let us take -5 to be our correction factor (any number between the medians, such as -6 or -7, would also be a valid choice)
thus our new goal is 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+5=7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14, and the new differences are 5 5 5 0 -3 -2 -2 -86*
this means we will need to do 5+5+5+0+3+2+2+86=108 steps
*(we obtain this by repeating step 2 with our new target, or by adding 5 to each number of the previous difference... but since you only care about the sum, we'd just add 8*5 (vector length times correct factor) to the previously calculated sum)
Alternatively, we could have also taken -6 or -7 to be our correction factor. Let's say we took -7...
then the new goal would have been 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+7=9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, and the new differences would have been 7 7 7 2 1 0 0 -84
this would have meant we'd need to do 7+7+7+2+1+0+0+84=108 steps, the same as above
If you simulate this yourself, can see the number of steps becomes >108 as we take offsets further away from the range [-5,-7].
Pseudocode:
def minSteps(array A of size N):
A' = [0,1,...,N-1]
diffs = A'-A
medianOfDiffs = leftMedian(diffs)
return sum(abs(diffs-medianOfDiffs))
Python:
leftMedian = lambda x:sorted(x)[len(x)//2]
def minSteps(array):
target = range(len(array))
diffs = [t-a for t,a in zip(target,array)]
medianOfDiffs = leftMedian(diffs)
return sum(abs(d-medianOfDiffs) for d in diffs)
edit:
It turns out that for arrays of distinct integers, this is equivalent to a simpler solution: picking one of the (up to 2) medians, assuming it doesn't move, and moving other numbers accordingly. This simpler method often gives incorrect answers if you have any duplicates, but the OP didn't ask that, so that would be a simpler and more elegant solution. Additionally we can use the proof I've given in this solution to justify the "assume the median doesn't move" solution as follows: the corrective factor will always be in the center of the array (i.e. the median of the differences will be from the median of the numbers). Thus any restriction which also guarantees this can be used to create variations of this brainteaser.
Get one of the medians of all the numbers. As the numbers are already sorted, this shouldn't be a big deal. Assume that median does not move. Then compute the total cost of moving all the numbers accordingly. This should give the answer.
community edit:
def minSteps(a):
"""INPUT: list of sorted unique integers"""
oneMedian = a[floor(n/2)]
aTarget = [oneMedian + (i-floor(n/2)) for i in range(len(a))]
# aTargets looks roughly like [m-n/2?, ..., m-1, m, m+1, ..., m+n/2]
return sum(abs(aTarget[i]-a[i]) for i in range(len(a)))
This is probably not an ideal solution, but a first idea.
Given a sorted sequence [x1, x2, …, xn]:
Write a function that returns the differences of an element to the previous and to the next element, i.e. (xn – xn–1, xn+1 – xn).
If the difference to the previous element is > 1, you would have to increase all previous elements by xn – xn–1 – 1. That is, the number of necessary steps would increase by the number of previous elements × (xn – xn–1 – 1). Let's call this number a.
If the difference to the next element is >1, you would have to decrease all subsequent elements by xn+1 – xn – 1. That is, the number of necessary steps would increase by the number of subsequent elements × (xn+1 – xn – 1). Let's call this number b.
If a < b, then increase all previous elements until they are contiguous to the current element. If a > b, then decrease all subsequent elements until they are contiguous to the current element. If a = b, it doesn't matter which of these two actions is chosen.
Add up the number of steps taken in the previous step (by increasing the total number of necessary steps by either a or b), and repeat until all elements are contiguous.
First of all, imagine that we pick an arbitrary target of contiguous increasing values and then calculate the cost (number of steps required) for modifying the array the array to match.
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
Target: 4 5 6 7 8 9
Difference: +1 0 -1 -1 -2 -7 -> Cost = 12
Sign: + 0 - - - -
Because the input array is already ordered and distinct, it is strictly increasing. Because of this, it can be shown that the differences will always be non-increasing.
If we change the target by increasing it by 1, the cost will change. Each position in which the difference is currently positive or zero will incur an increase in cost by 1. Each position in which the difference is currently negative will yield a decrease in cost by 1:
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
New target: 5 6 7 8 9 10
New Difference: +2 +1 0 0 -1 -6 -> Cost = 10 (decrease by 2)
Conversely, if we decrease the target by 1, each position in which the difference is currently positive will yield a decrease in cost by 1, while each position in which the difference is zero or negative will incur an increase in cost by 1:
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
New target: 3 4 5 6 7 8
New Difference: 0 -1 -2 -2 -3 -8 -> Cost = 16 (increase by 4)
In order to find the optimal values for the target array, we must find a target such that any change (increment or decrement) will not decrease the cost. Note that an increment of the target can only decrease the cost when there are more positions with negative difference than there are with zero or positive difference. A decrement can only decrease the cost when there are more positions with a positive difference than with a zero or negative difference.
Here are some example distributions of difference signs. Remember that the differences array is non-increasing, so positives always have to be first and negatives last:
C C
+ + + - - - optimal
+ + 0 - - - optimal
0 0 0 - - - optimal
+ 0 - - - - can increment (negatives exceed positives & zeroes)
+ + + 0 0 0 optimal
+ + + + - - can decrement (positives exceed negatives & zeroes)
+ + 0 0 - - optimal
+ 0 0 0 0 0 optimal
C C
Observe that if one of the central elements (marked C) is zero, the target must be optimal. In such a circumstance, at best any increment or decrement will not change the cost, but it may increase it. This result is important, because it gives us a trivial solution. We pick a target such that a[n/2] remains unchanged. There may be other possible targets that yield the same cost, but there are definitely none that are better. Here's the original code modified to calculate this cost:
//n is the number of elements in array a
int targetValue;
int cost = 0;
int middle = n / 2;
int startValue = a[middle] - middle;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
targetValue = startValue + i;
cost += abs(targetValue - a[i]);
}
printf("%d\n",cost);
You can not do it by iterating once on the array, that's for sure.
You need first to check the difference between each two numbers, for example:
2,7,8,9 can be 2,3,4,5 with 18 steps or 6,7,8,9 with 4 steps.
Create a new array with the difference like so: for 2,7,8,9 it wiil be 4,1,1. Now you can decide whether to increase or decrease the first number.
Lets assume that the contiguous array looks something like this -
c c+1 c+2 c+3 .. and so on
Now lets take an example -
5 7 8 10
The contiguous array in this case will be -
c c+1 c+2 c+3
In order to get the minimum steps, the sum of the modulus of the difference of the integers(before and after) w.r.t the ith index should be the minimum. In which case,
(c-5)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-7)^2 should be minimum
Let f(c) = (c-5)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-7)^2
= 4c^2 - 48c + 146
Applying differential calculus to get the minima,
f'(c) = 8c - 48 = 0
=> c = 6
So our contiguous array is 6 7 8 9 and the minimum cost here is 2.
To sum it up, just generate f(c), get the first differential and find out c.
This should take O(n).
Brute force approach O(N*M)
If one draws a line through each point in the array a then y0 is a value where each line starts at index 0. Then the answer is the minimum among number of steps reqired to get from a to every line that starts at y0, in Python:
y0s = set((y - i) for i, y in enumerate(a))
nsteps = min(sum(abs(y-(y0+i)) for i, y in enumerate(a))
for y0 in xrange(min(y0s), max(y0s)+1)))
Input
2,4,5,6
2,4,5,8
Output
1
3
Found the following inteview q on the web:
You have an array of
0s and 1s and you want to output all the intervals (i, j) where the
number of 0s and numbers of 1s are equal. Example
pos = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
One interval is (0, 1) because there the number
of 0 and 1 are equal. There are many other intervals, find all of them
in linear time.
I think there is no linear time algo, as there may be n^2 such intervals.
Am I right? How can I prove that there are n^2 such ?
This is the fastest way I can think of to do this, and it is linear to the number of intervals there are.
Let L be your original list of numbers and A be a hash of empty arrays where initially A[0] = [0]
sum = 0
for i in 0..n
if L[i] == 0:
sum--
A[sum].push(i)
elif L[i] == 1:
sum++
A[sum].push(i)
Now A is essentially an x y graph of the sum of the sequence (x is the index of the list, y is the sum). Every time there are two x values x1 and x2 to an y value, you have an interval (x1, x2] where the number of 0s and 1s is equal.
There are m(m-1)/2 (arithmetic sum from 1 to m - 1) intervals where the sum is 0 in every array M in A where m = M.length
Using your example to calculate A by hand we use this chart
L # 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
A keys 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -1 0 1 2 1
L index -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(I've added a # to represent the start of the list with an key of -1. Also removed all the numbers that are not 0 or 1 since they're just distractions) A will look like this:
[-2]->[5]
[-1]->[0, 2, 4, 6]
[0]->[-1, 1, 3, 7]
[1]->[8, 10]
[2]->[9]
For any M = [a1, a2, a3, ...], (ai + 1, aj) where j > i will be an interval with the same number of 0s as 1s. For example, in [-1]->[0, 2, 4, 6], the intervals are (1, 2), (1, 4), (1, 6), (3, 4), (3, 6), (5, 6).
Building the array A is O(n), but printing these intervals from A must be done in linear time to the number of intervals. In fact, that could be your proof that it is not quite possible to do this in linear time to n because it's possible to have more intervals than n and you need at least the number of interval iterations to print them all.
Unless of course you consider building A is enough to find all the intervals (since it's obvious from A what the intervals are), then it is linear to n :P
A linear solution is possible (sorry, earlier I argued that this had to be n^2) if you're careful to not actually print the results!
First, let's define a "score" for any set of zeros and ones as the number of ones minus the number of zeroes. So (0,1) has a score of 0, while (0) is -1 and (1,1) is 2.
Now, start from the right. If the right-most digit is a 0 then it can be combined with any group to the left that has a score of 1. So we need to know what groups are available to the left, indexed by score. This suggests a recursive procedure that accumulates groups with scores. The sweep process is O(n) and at each step the process has to check whether it has created a new group and extend the table of known groups. Checking for a new group is constant time (lookup in a hash table). Extending the table of known groups is also constant time (at first I thought it wasn't, but you can maintain a separate offset that avoids updating each entry in the table).
So we have a peculiar situation: each step of the process identifies a set of results of size O(n), but the calculation necessary to do this is constant time (within that step). So the process itself is still O(n) (proportional to the number of steps). Of course, actually printing the results (either during the step, or at the end) makes things O(n^2).
I'll write some Python code to test/demonstrate.
Here we go:
SCORE = [-1,1]
class Accumulator:
def __init__(self):
self.offset = 0
self.groups_to_right = {} # map from score to start index
self.even_groups = []
self.index = 0
def append(self, digit):
score = SCORE[digit]
# want existing groups at -score, to sum to zero
# but there's an offset to correct for, so we really want
# groups at -(score+offset)
corrected = -(score + self.offset)
if corrected in self.groups_to_right:
# if this were a linked list we could save a reference
# to the current value. it's not, so we need to filter
# on printing (see below)
self.even_groups.append(
(self.index, self.groups_to_right[corrected]))
# this updates all the known groups
self.offset += score
# this adds the new one, which should be at the index so that
# index + offset = score (so index = score - offset)
groups = self.groups_to_right.get(score-self.offset, [])
groups.append(self.index)
self.groups_to_right[score-self.offset] = groups
# and move on
self.index += 1
#print self.offset
#print self.groups_to_right
#print self.even_groups
#print self.index
def dump(self):
# printing the results does take longer, of course...
for (end, starts) in self.even_groups:
for start in starts:
# this discards the extra points that were added
# to the data after we added it to the results
# (avoidable with linked lists)
if start < end:
print (start, end)
#staticmethod
def run(input):
accumulator = Accumulator()
print input
for digit in input:
accumulator.append(digit)
accumulator.dump()
print
Accumulator.run([0,1,0,0,1,1,1,1,0])
And the output:
dynamic: python dynamic.py
[0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0]
(0, 1)
(1, 2)
(1, 4)
(3, 4)
(0, 5)
(2, 5)
(7, 8)
You might be worried that some additional processing (the filtering for start < end) is done in the dump routine that displays the results. But that's because I am working around Python's lack of linked lists (I want to both extend a list and save the previous value in constant time).
It may seem surprising that the result is of size O(n^2) while the process of finding the results is O(n), but it's easy to see how that is possible: at one "step" the process identifies a number of groups (of size O(n)) by associating the current point (self.index in append, or end in dump()) with a list of end points (self.groups_to_right[...] or ends).
Update: One further point. The table of "groups to the right" will have a "typical width" of sqrt(n) entries (this follows from the central limit theorem - it's basically a random walk in 1D). Since an entry is added at each step, the average length is also sqrt(n) (the n values shared out over sqrt(n) bins). That means that the expected time for this algorithm (ie with random inputs), if you include printing the results, is O(n^3/2) even though worst case is O(n^2)
Answering directly the question:
you have to constructing an example where there are more than O(N) matches:
let N be in the form 2^k, with the following input:
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 (here, N=16)
number of matches (where 0 is the starting character):
length #
2 N/2
4 N/2 - 1
6 N/2 - 2
8 N/2 - 3
..
N 1
The total number of matches (starting with 0) is: (1+N/2) * (N/2) / 2 = N^2/8 + N/4
The matches starting with 1 are almost the same, expect that it is one less for each length.
Total: (N^2/8 + N/4) * 2 - N/2 = N^2/4
Every interval will contain at least one sequence of either (0,1) or (1,0). Therefore, it's simply a matter of finding every occurance of (0,1) or (1,0), then for each seeing if it is adjacent to an existing solution or if the two bookend elements form another solution.
With a bit of storage trickery you will be able to find all solutions in linear time. Enumerating them will be O(N^2), but you should be able to encode them in O(N) space.
I received a question during an Amazon interview and would like assistance with solving it.
Given N arrays of size K each, each of these K elements in the N arrays are sorted, and each of these N*K elements are unique. Choose a single element from each of the N arrays, from the chosen subset of N elements. Subtract the minimum and maximum element. This difference should be the least possible minimum.
Sample:
N=3, K=3
N=1 : 6, 16, 67
N=2 : 11,17,68
N=3 : 10, 15, 100
here if 16, 17, 15 are chosen, we get the minimum difference as
17-15=2.
I can think of O(N*K*N)(edited after correctly pointed out by zivo, not a good solution now :( ) solution.
1. Take N pointer initially pointing to initial element each of N arrays.
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10, 15, 100
^
2. Find out the highest and lowest element among the current pointer O(k) (6 and 11) and find the difference between them.(5)
3. Increment the pointer which is pointing to lowest element by 1 in that array.
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10, 15, 100 (difference:5)
^
4. Keep repeating step 2 and 3 and store the minimum difference.
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10,15,100 (difference:5)
^
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10,15,100 (difference:2)
^
Above will be the required solution.
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10,15,100 (difference:84)
^
6, 16, 67
^
11,17,68
^
10,15,100 (difference:83)
^
And so on......
EDIT:
Its complexity can be reduced by using a heap (as suggested by Uri). I thought of it but faced a problem: Each time an element is extracted from heap, its array number has to be found out in order to increment the corresponding pointer for that array. An efficient way to find array number can definitely reduce the complexity to O(K*N log(K*N)). One naive way is to use a data structure like this
Struct
{
int element;
int arraynumer;
}
and reconstruct the initial data like
6|0,16|0,67|0
11|1,17|1,68|1
10|2,15|2,100|2
Initially keep the current max for first column and insert the pointed elements in heap. Now each time an element is extracted, its array number can be found out, pointer in that array is incremented , the newly pointed element can be compared to current max and max pointer can be adjusted accordingly.
So here is an algorithm to do solve this problem in two steps:
First step is to merge all your arrays into one sorted array which would look like this:
combined_val[] - which holds all numbers
combined_ind[] - which holds index of which array did this number originally belonged to
this step can be done easily in O(K*N*log(N)) but i think you can do better than that too (maybe not, you can lookup variants of merge sort because they do step similar to that)
Now second step:
it is easier to just put code instead of explaining so here is the pseduocode:
int count[N] = { 0 }
int head = 0;
int diffcnt = 0;
// mindiff is initialized to overall maximum value - overall minimum value
int mindiff = combined_val[N * K - 1] - combined_val[0];
for (int i = 0; i < N * K; i++)
{
count[combined_ind[i]]++;
if (count[combined_ind[i]] == 1) {
// diffcnt counts how many arrays have at least one element between
// indexes of "head" and "i". Once diffcnt reaches N it will stay N and
// not increase anymore
diffcnt++;
} else {
while (count[combined_ind[head]] > 1) {
// We try to move head index as forward as possible while keeping diffcnt constant.
// i.e. if count[combined_ind[head]] is 1, then if we would move head forward
// diffcnt would decrease, that is something we dont want to do.
count[combined_ind[head]]--;
head++;
}
}
if (diffcnt == N) {
// i.e. we got at least one element from all arrays
if (combined_val[i] - combined_val[head] < mindiff) {
mindiff = combined_val[i] - combined_val[head];
// if you want to save actual numbers too, you can save this (i.e. i and head
// and then extract data from that)
}
}
}
the result is in mindiff.
The runing time of second step is O(N * K). This is because "head" index will move only N*K times maximum. so the inner loop does not make this quadratic, it is still linear.
So total algorithm running time is O(N * K * log(N)), however this is because of merging step, if you can come up with better merging step you can probably bring it down to O(N * K).
This problem is for managers
You have 3 developers (N1), 3 testers (N2) and 3 DBAs (N3)
Choose the less divergent team that can run a project successfully.
int[n] result;// where result[i] keeps the element from bucket N_i
int[n] latest;//where latest[i] keeps the latest element visited from bucket N_i
Iterate elements in (N_1 + N_2 + N_3) in sorted order
{
Keep track of latest element visited from each bucket N_i by updating 'latest' array;
if boundary(latest) < boundary(result)
{
result = latest;
}
}
int boundary(int[] array)
{
return Max(array) - Min(array);
}
I've O(K*N*log(K)), with typical execution much less. Currently cannot think anything better. I'll explain first the easier to describe (somewhat longer execution):
For each element f in the first array (loop through K elements)
For each array, starting from the second array (loop through N-1 arrays)
Do a binary search on the array, and find element closest to f. This is your element (Log(K))
This algorithm can be optimized, if for each array, you add a new Floor Index. When performent the binary search, search between 'Floor' to 'K-1'.
Initially Floor index is 0, and for first element you search through the entire arrays. Once you find an element closest to 'f', update the Floor Index with the index of that element. Worse case is the same (Floor may not update, if maximum element of first array is smaller than any other minimum), but average case will improve.
Correctness proof for the accepted answer (Terminal's solution)
Assume that the algorithm finds a series A=<A[1],A[2],...,A[N]> which isn't the optimal solution (R).
Consider the index j in R, such that item R[j] is the first item among R that the algorithm examines and replaces it with the next item in its row.
Let A' denote the candidate solution at that phase (prior to the replacement). Since R[j]=A'[j] is the minimum value of A', it's also the minimum of R.
Now, consider the maximum value of R, R[m]. If A'[m]<R[m], then R can be improved by replacing R[m] with A'[m], which contradicts the fact that R is optimal. Therefore, A'[m]=R[m].
In other words, R and A' share the same maximum and minimum, therefore they are equivalent. This completes the proof: if R is an optimal solution, then the algorithm is guaranteed to find a solution as good as R.
for every element in 1st array
choose the element in 2nd array that is closest to the element in 1st array
current_array = 2;
do
{
choose the element in current_array+1 that is closest to the element in current_array
current_array++;
} while(current_array < n);
complexity: O(k^2*n)
Here is my logic on how to resolve this issue, keeping in mind that we need to pick one element from each of the N arrays (to compute the least minimum)
// if we take the above values as an example!
// then the idea would be to sort all three arrays while keeping another
// array to keep the reference to their sets (1 or 2 or 3, could be
// extended to n sets)
1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 // this is the array that holds the set index
6 10 11 15 16 17 67 68 100 // this is the sorted combined array.
| |
5 2 33 // this is the computed least minimum,
// the rule is to make sure the indexes of the values
// we are comparing are different (to make sure we are
// comparing elements from different sets), then for example
// the first element of that example is index:1|value:6 we hold
// that value 6 (that is the value we will be using to compute the least minimum,
// then we go to the edge of the comparison which would be the second different index,
// we skip index:3|value:10 (we remove it from the array) we compare index:2|value:11
// to index:1|value:6 we obtain 5 which would go to a variable named leastMinimum = 5,
// now we remove the indexes and values we already used,
// and redo the same steps.
Step 1:
1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3
6 10 11 15 16 17 67 68 100
|
5
leastMinumum = 5
Step 2:
3 1 2 1 2 3
15 16 17 67 68 100
|
2
leastMinimum = min(2, leastMinumum) // which is equal 2
Step 3:
1 2 3
67 68 100
33
leastMinimum = min(33, leastMinumum) // which is equal to old leastMinumum which is 2
Now: We suppose we have elements from the same array that are very close to each other (k=2 this time which means we only have 3 sets with two values) :
// After sorting the n arrays we will have the below indexes array and values array
1 1 2 3 2 3
6 7 8 12 15 16
* * *
* we skip second index of 1|7 and we take the least minimum of 1|6 and 3|12 (index:2|value:8 will be removed as it is not at the edges, we pick the minimum and maximum of the unique index subset of n elements)
1 3
6 12
=6
* second step we remove the values we already used, so the array become like below:
1 2 3
7 15 16
* * *
7 - 16
= 9
Note:
Another approach that consumes more memory would consist of creating N sub-arrays from which we would be comparing the maximum - minumum
So from the below sorted values array and its corresponding indexes array we extract three other sub arrays:
1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3
6 10 11 15 16 17 67 68 100
First Array:
1 3 2
6 10 11
11-6 = 5
Second Array:
3 1 2
15 15 17
17-15 = 2
Third Array:
1 2 3
67 68 100
100 - 67 = 33
Give an algorithm to find a given element x (give the co-ordinates), in an n by n matrix where the rows and columns are monotonically increasing.
My thoughts:
Reduce problem set size.
In the 1st column, find the largest element <= x. We know x must be in this row or after (lower). In the last column of the matrix, find the smallest element >= x. We know x must be in this row or before. Do the same thing with the first and last rows of the matrix. We have now defined a sub-matrix such that if x is in the matrix at all, it is in this sub-matrix. Now repeat the algo on this sub-matrix... Something along these lines.
[YAAQ: Yet another arrays question.]
I think you cannot hope for more than O(N), which is attainable. (N is the width of the matrix).
Why you cannot hope for more
Imagine a matrix like this:
0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0 x
0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 x 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 ... x 2 2
.....................
0 0 0 0 0 x ... 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 x 2 ... 2 2 2
0 0 0 x 2 2 ... 2 2 2
0 0 x 2 2 2 ... 2 2 2
0 x 2 2 2 2 ... 2 2 2
x 2 2 2 2 2 ... 2 2 2
where x is an unknown number (not the same number, ie. it might be a different one in every column). To satisfy the monotonicity of the matrix, you can place any of 0, 1, or 2 in all of the x places. So, to find if there is 1 in the matrix, you have to check all the x places, and there are N of them.
How to make it O(n)
Imagine you have to find first column indicies with number > q (a given number) for all rows. You start in the upper right corner of the matrix; if the number you see is greater, you go left; else go down. End when you are in the last row. The points where you went down are the places you search for. If any of them have the number you search for, you've found it.
This algorithm is O(n), because in each step, you either go left or down. Totally, it cannot go more than N times left and N times down. Therefore it's O(n).
Pick a corner element, one that is greatest in its row and smallest in its column (or the other way). Compare with x. Depending on the result of the comparison, you can exclude the row or the column from further search.
The new matrix has sum of dimensions decreased by 1, compared to the original one. Apply the above iteratively. After 2*n steps you end up with a 1x1 matrix.
If "the rows and columns are monotonically increasing" means that the values in each (row,col) increase such that for any row, (rowM,col1) < (rowM,col2) < ... < (rowM,colN) < (rowM+1,col1) ...
Then you can just treat it as a 1 dimensional array that is sorted from smallest to largest, and do a standard binary search, by sampling the item that is 1/2(rows * cols) fron the start, then sampling the element that is 1/4(rows * cols) behind (if the first element sampled is > x) or ahead (if the first element sampled is < x), and so forth.