Let's say we have an array of size N with values from 1 to N inside it. We want to check if this array has any duplicates. My friend suggested two ways that I showed him were wrong:
Take the sum of the array and check it against the sum 1+2+3+...+N. I gave the example 1,1,4,4 which proves that this way is wrong since 1+1+4+4 = 1+2+3+4 despite there being duplicates in the array.
Next he suggested the same thing but with multiplication. i.e. check if the product of the elements in the array is equal to N!, but again this fails with an array like 2,2,3,2, where 2x2x3x2 = 1x2x3x4.
Finally, he suggested doing both checks, and if one of them fails, then there is a duplicate in the array. I can't help but feel that this is still incorrect, but I can't prove it to him by giving him an example of an array with duplicates that passes both checks. I understand that the burden of proof lies with him, not me, but I can't help but want to find an example where this doesn't work.
P.S. I understand there are many more efficient ways to solve such a problem, but we are trying to discuss this particular approach.
Is there a way to prove that doing both checks doesn't necessarily mean there are no duplicates?
Here's a counterexample: 1,3,3,3,4,6,7,8,10,10
Found by looking for a pair of composite numbers with factorizations that change the sum & count by the same amount.
I.e., 9 -> 3, 3 reduces the sum by 3 and increases the count by 1, and 10 -> 2, 5 does the same. So by converting 2,5 to 10 and 9 to 3,3, I leave both the sum and count unchanged. Also of course the product, since I'm replacing numbers with their factors & vice versa.
Here's a much longer one.
24 -> 2*3*4 increases the count by 2 and decreases the sum by 15
2*11 -> 22 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 9
2*8 -> 16 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 6.
We have a second 2 available because of the factorization of 24.
This gives us:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
Has the same sum, product, and count of elements as
1,3,3,4,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23
In general you can find these by finding all factorizations of composite numbers, seeing how they change the sum & count (as above), and choosing changes in both directions (composite <-> factors) that cancel out.
I've just wrote a simple not very effective brute-force function. And it shows that there is for example
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9
sequence that has the same sum and product as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For n = 10 there are more such sequences:
1 2 3 4 6 6 6 7 10 10
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9 10
1 3 3 3 4 6 7 8 10 10
1 3 3 4 4 4 7 9 10 10
2 2 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 10
My write-only c++ code is here: https://ideone.com/2oRCbh
Given a grid of dimensions A*B with values between 1-9, find a sequence of B numbers that maximizes the minimum number of values matched when compared with A rows.
Describe the certain steps you would take to maximize the minimum score.
Example:
Grid Dimension
A = 5 , B = 10
Grid Values
9 3 9 2 9 9 4 5 7 6
6 3 4 2 8 5 7 5 9 2
4 9 5 8 3 7 3 2 7 6
7 5 8 9 9 4 7 3 3 7
2 6 8 3 2 4 5 4 2 2
Possible Answer
6 3 8 2 9 4 7 5 7 4
Score Calculation
This answer scores
5 when compared with Row 1
5 when compared with Row 2
1 when compared with Row 3
4 when compared with Row 4
2 when compared with Row 5
And thus the minimal score for this answer is 1.
I would go for a local hill-climbing approach that you can complement with a randomization to avoid local minima. Something like:
1. Generate a random starting solution S
2. Compute its score score(S, row) for each row. We'll call min_score(S) the minimum score among all rows for S.
3. Attempt to improve the solution with:
For each digit i (1..B) in S:
If i belongs to a row such that score(S, row) > (min_score(S) + 1) then:
Change i to be the digit of a row with min_score(S). If there was only one row with min_score(S), then min_score(S) has improved by 1
Update the scores of all the rows.
If min_score(S) hasn't improved for more than N iterations of 3, go back to 1 and start with a new random solution.
We are studying algorithms and we haven't yet started making any programs with it, so we have a simple exercises. For example:
I have to bubble sort:
4 2 7 16 6
Here is a proccess (we have to look from the right to left in this case):
4 2 7 16 6 (it makes 3 swaps and 4 comparisons in this)
2 4 6 7 16 (it makes 0 swaps and 3 comparison in this)
2 4 6 7 16 (the result)
This how I understand it:
4 2 7 16 6 (6 is swapped with 16)
4 2 7 6 16 (6 is swapped with 7)
4 2 6 7 16 (6 is not swapped with 2)
4 2 6 7 16 (2 is swapped with 4)
2 4 6 7 16 (result after 1st iteration)
now we have numbers which have been arranged properly, we have made 4 comparisons at the beginning and 3 swaps and we know that 2 is the smallest number so we will look at 4 6 7 16 now. However they are arranged properly but still we have to make 3 additional
comparisons.
My question is: do we have to make another 2 comparisons and then the last 1 comparison (which would result in 10 comparisons overall) to finish the bubble sort? Or it stops after 7?
I'm not sure when the Bubble-sort stops.
I have a sqaure matrix and a smaller square which moves inside the matrix at all possible positions (does not go out of the matrix). I need to find the smallest number in all such possible overlappings.
The problem is that the sizes of both can go upto thousands. Any fast way to do that?
I know one way - if there's an array instead of a matrix and a window instead of a square, we can do that in linear time using a deque.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Examples
Matrix:
1 3 6 2 5
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
7 4 8 2 1
8 0 9 0 5
For a square of size 3, total 9 overlappings are possible. For each overlapping the minimum numbers in matrix form are:
1 1 1
2 1 1
0 0 0
It is possible in O(k * n^2) with your deque idea:
If your smaller square is k x k, iterate the first row of elements from 1 to k in your matrix and treat it as an array by precomputing the minimum of the elements from 1 to k, from 2 to k + 1 etc in each column of the matrix (this precomputation will take O(k * n^2)). This is what your first row will be:
*********
1 3 6 2 5
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
*********
7 4 8 2 1
8 0 9 0 5
The precomputation I mentioned will give you the minimum in each of its columns, so you will have reduced the problem to your 1d array problem.
Then continue with the row of elements from 2 to k + 1:
1 3 6 2 5
*********
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
7 4 8 2 1
*********
8 0 9 0 5
There will be O(n) rows and you will be able to solve each one in O(n) because our precomputation allows us to reduce them to basic arrays.
The Build-Heap algorithm given in CLRS
BUILD-MAX-HEAP(A)
1 heap-size[A] ← length[A]
2 for i ← ⌊length[A]/2⌋ downto 1
3 do MAX-HEAPIFY(A, i)
It produces only One of several possible cases.Are there other algorithms which would yield a different case than that of the above algorithm.
For input array
A={4,1,3,2,16,9,10,14,8,7}
Build-Heap produces A={16,14,10,8,7,9,3,2,4,1} which satisfies heap property.
May be this is the most efficient algorithm to build a heap out of an array but there are several other permutations of the array which also have the heap property.
When i generated all permutations of the array and performed a test for heap property.I got 3360 permutations of the array which had the heap property.
Count1 16 9 14 4 8 10 3 2 1 7
Count2 16 9 14 4 8 10 3 1 2 7
Count3 16 9 14 4 8 10 2 1 3 7
Count4 16 9 14 4 8 10 2 3 1 7
Count5 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 2 1 3
Count6 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 2 3 1
Count7 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 1 3 2
Count8 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 1 2 3
Count9 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 3 1 2
Count10 16 9 14 4 8 10 7 3 2 1
...........................................................
Count3358 16 8 14 7 4 9 10 2 1 3
Count3359 16 8 14 7 4 9 10 3 2 1
Count3360 16 8 14 7 4 9 10 3 1 2
So is there a different build-heap algorithm which would give an output which differs from that of the above algorithm or which gives some of the 3360 possible outcomes?
Once we have used the build-heap to get an array which satisfies the heap property.How can we generate maximum number of other cases using this array.We can swap the leaf nodes of the heap to generate some of the cases.Is there any other way to get more possible cases without checking all permutations for heap property test?
Given the range of values in the array and all values being distinct.Can we say anything about the total number of possible cases that will satisfy the heap property?
Any heap building algorithm will be sensitive to the order in which items are inserted. Even the Build-Heap algorithm will generate a different heap if you give it the same elements, but in a different order.
Remember that when you're building a heap, the partially-built part must maintain the heap property after each insertion. So that's going to limit the different permutations that can be generated by any particular algorithm.
Given a heap, it's fairly easy to generate at least some of the permitted permutations.
A node doesn't care about the relative size of its two child nodes. Therefore, you can swap the children of any node, then do a sift-up on the smaller of the two to ensure that the heap property is maintained for that subtree (i.e., if it's smaller than one of its sub-nodes, swap it with that sub-node, and continue doing the same down that path until it gets to a spot where it's larger than either sub-node, or it's moved close enough to the end of the array that it's a leaf node.