I am trying to understand this bit reversal algorithm. I found a lot of sources but it doesn't really explain how the pseudo-code works. For example, I found the pseudo-code below from http://www.briangough.com/fftalgorithms.pdf
for i = 0 ... n − 2 do
k = n/2
if i < j then
swap g(i) and g(j)
end if
while k ≤ j do
j ⇐ j − k
k ⇐ k/2
end while
j ⇐ j + k
end for
From looking at this pseudo-code, I don't understand why you would do
swap g(i) and g(j)
when the if statement is true.
Also: what does the while loop do? It would be great if someone can explain this pseudo-code to me.
below is the c++ code that I found online.
void four1(double data[], int nn, int isign)
{
int n, mmax, m, j, istep, i;
double wtemp, wr, wpr, wpi, wi, theta;
double tempr, tempi;
n = nn << 1;
j = 1;
for (i = 1; i < n; i += 2) {
if (j > i) {
tempr = data[j]; data[j] = data[i]; data[i] = tempr;
tempr = data[j+1]; data[j+1] = data[i+1]; data[i+1] = tempr;
}
m = n >> 1;
while (m >= 2 && j > m) {
j -= m;
m >>= 1;
}
j += m;
}
Here is the full version of the source code that I found that does FFT
/************************************************
* FFT code from the book Numerical Recipes in C *
* Visit www.nr.com for the licence. *
************************************************/
// The following line must be defined before including math.h to correctly define M_PI
#define _USE_MATH_DEFINES
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define PI M_PI /* pi to machine precision, defined in math.h */
#define TWOPI (2.0*PI)
/*
FFT/IFFT routine. (see pages 507-508 of Numerical Recipes in C)
Inputs:
data[] : array of complex* data points of size 2*NFFT+1.
data[0] is unused,
* the n'th complex number x(n), for 0 <= n <= length(x)-1, is stored as:
data[2*n+1] = real(x(n))
data[2*n+2] = imag(x(n))
if length(Nx) < NFFT, the remainder of the array must be padded with zeros
nn : FFT order NFFT. This MUST be a power of 2 and >= length(x).
isign: if set to 1,
computes the forward FFT
if set to -1,
computes Inverse FFT - in this case the output values have
to be manually normalized by multiplying with 1/NFFT.
Outputs:
data[] : The FFT or IFFT results are stored in data, overwriting the input.
*/
void four1(double data[], int nn, int isign)
{
int n, mmax, m, j, istep, i;
double wtemp, wr, wpr, wpi, wi, theta;
double tempr, tempi;
n = nn << 1;
j = 1;
for (i = 1; i < n; i += 2) {
if (j > i) {
//swap the real part
tempr = data[j]; data[j] = data[i]; data[i] = tempr;
//swap the complex part
tempr = data[j+1]; data[j+1] = data[i+1]; data[i+1] = tempr;
}
m = n >> 1;
while (m >= 2 && j > m) {
j -= m;
m >>= 1;
}
j += m;
}
mmax = 2;
while (n > mmax) {
istep = 2*mmax;
theta = TWOPI/(isign*mmax);
wtemp = sin(0.5*theta);
wpr = -2.0*wtemp*wtemp;
wpi = sin(theta);
wr = 1.0;
wi = 0.0;
for (m = 1; m < mmax; m += 2) {
for (i = m; i <= n; i += istep) {
j =i + mmax;
tempr = wr*data[j] - wi*data[j+1];
tempi = wr*data[j+1] + wi*data[j];
data[j] = data[i] - tempr;
data[j+1] = data[i+1] - tempi;
data[i] += tempr;
data[i+1] += tempi;
}
wr = (wtemp = wr)*wpr - wi*wpi + wr;
wi = wi*wpr + wtemp*wpi + wi;
}
mmax = istep;
}
}
/********************************************************
* The following is a test routine that generates a ramp *
* with 10 elements, finds their FFT, and then finds the *
* original sequence using inverse FFT *
********************************************************/
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
int i;
int Nx;
int NFFT;
double *x;
double *X;
/* generate a ramp with 10 numbers */
Nx = 10;
printf("Nx = %d\n", Nx);
x = (double *) malloc(Nx * sizeof(double));
for(i=0; i<Nx; i++)
{
x[i] = i;
}
/* calculate NFFT as the next higher power of 2 >= Nx */
NFFT = (int)pow(2.0, ceil(log((double)Nx)/log(2.0)));
printf("NFFT = %d\n", NFFT);
/* allocate memory for NFFT complex numbers (note the +1) */
X = (double *) malloc((2*NFFT+1) * sizeof(double));
/* Storing x(n) in a complex array to make it work with four1.
This is needed even though x(n) is purely real in this case. */
for(i=0; i<Nx; i++)
{
X[2*i+1] = x[i];
X[2*i+2] = 0.0;
}
/* pad the remainder of the array with zeros (0 + 0 j) */
for(i=Nx; i<NFFT; i++)
{
X[2*i+1] = 0.0;
X[2*i+2] = 0.0;
}
printf("\nInput complex sequence (padded to next highest power of 2):\n");
for(i=0; i<NFFT; i++)
{
printf("x[%d] = (%.2f + j %.2f)\n", i, X[2*i+1], X[2*i+2]);
}
/* calculate FFT */
four1(X, NFFT, 1);
printf("\nFFT:\n");
for(i=0; i<NFFT; i++)
{
printf("X[%d] = (%.2f + j %.2f)\n", i, X[2*i+1], X[2*i+2]);
}
/* calculate IFFT */
four1(X, NFFT, -1);
/* normalize the IFFT */
for(i=0; i<NFFT; i++)
{
X[2*i+1] /= NFFT;
X[2*i+2] /= NFFT;
}
printf("\nComplex sequence reconstructed by IFFT:\n");
for(i=0; i<NFFT; i++)
{
printf("x[%d] = (%.2f + j %.2f)\n", i, X[2*i+1], X[2*i+2]);
}
getchar();
}
/*
Nx = 10
NFFT = 16
Input complex sequence (padded to next highest power of 2):
x[0] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[1] = (1.00 + j 0.00)
x[2] = (2.00 + j 0.00)
x[3] = (3.00 + j 0.00)
x[4] = (4.00 + j 0.00)
x[5] = (5.00 + j 0.00)
x[6] = (6.00 + j 0.00)
x[7] = (7.00 + j 0.00)
x[8] = (8.00 + j 0.00)
x[9] = (9.00 + j 0.00)
x[10] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[11] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[12] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[13] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[14] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[15] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
FFT:
X[0] = (45.00 + j 0.00)
X[1] = (-25.45 + j 16.67)
X[2] = (10.36 + j -3.29)
X[3] = (-9.06 + j -2.33)
X[4] = (4.00 + j 5.00)
X[5] = (-1.28 + j -5.64)
X[6] = (-2.36 + j 4.71)
X[7] = (3.80 + j -2.65)
X[8] = (-5.00 + j 0.00)
X[9] = (3.80 + j 2.65)
X[10] = (-2.36 + j -4.71)
X[11] = (-1.28 + j 5.64)
X[12] = (4.00 + j -5.00)
X[13] = (-9.06 + j 2.33)
X[14] = (10.36 + j 3.29)
X[15] = (-25.45 + j -16.67)
Complex sequence reconstructed by IFFT:
x[0] = (0.00 + j -0.00)
x[1] = (1.00 + j -0.00)
x[2] = (2.00 + j 0.00)
x[3] = (3.00 + j -0.00)
x[4] = (4.00 + j -0.00)
x[5] = (5.00 + j 0.00)
x[6] = (6.00 + j -0.00)
x[7] = (7.00 + j -0.00)
x[8] = (8.00 + j 0.00)
x[9] = (9.00 + j 0.00)
x[10] = (0.00 + j -0.00)
x[11] = (0.00 + j -0.00)
x[12] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[13] = (-0.00 + j -0.00)
x[14] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
x[15] = (0.00 + j 0.00)
*/
A bit-reversal algorithm creates a permutation of a data set by reversing the binary address of each item; so e.g. in a 16-item set the addresses:
0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
will be changed into:
1000 0100 1100 0010 1010 0110 1110 0001 1001 0101 1101 0011 1011 0111 1111
and the corresponding items are then moved to their new address.
Or in decimal notation:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
becomes
0 8 4 12 2 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 3 11 7 15
What the while loop in the pseudo-code does, is set variable j to this sequence. (Btw, the initial value of j should be 0).
You'll see that the sequence is made up like this:
0
0 1
0 2 1 3
0 4 2 6 1 5 3 7
0 8 4 12 2 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 3 11 7 15
with each sequence being made by multiplying the previous version by 2, and then repeating it with 1 added. Or looking at it another way: by repeating the previous sequence, interlaced with the values + n/2 (this more closely describes what happens in the algorithm).
0
0 1
0 2 1 3
0 4 2 6 1 5 3 7
0 8 4 12 2 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 3 11 7 15
Items i and j are then swapped in each iteration of the for loop, but only if i < j; otherwise every item would be swapped to its new place (e.g. when i = 3 and j = 12), and then back again (when i = 12 and j = 3).
function bitReversal(data) {
var n = data.length;
var j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n - 1; i++) {
var k = n / 2;
if (i < j) {
var temp = data[i]; data[i] = data[j]; data[j] = temp;
}
while (k <= j) {
j -= k;
k /= 2;
}
j += k;
}
return(data);
}
console.log(bitReversal([0,1]));
console.log(bitReversal([0,1,2,3]));
console.log(bitReversal([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7]));
console.log(bitReversal([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]));
console.log(bitReversal(["a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","i","j","k","l","m","n","o","p"]));
The C++ code you found appears to use the symmetry of the sequence to loop through it in double steps. It doesn't produce the correct result though, so either it's a failed attempt, or maybe it's designed to do something different entirely. Here's a version that uses the two-step idea:
function bitReversal2(data) {
var n = data.length;
var j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; i += 2) {
if (i < j) {
var temp = data[i]; data[i] = data[j]; data[j] = temp;
}
else {
var temp = data[n-1 - i]; data[n-1 - i] = data[n-1 - j]; data[n-1 - j] = temp;
}
var k = n / 4;
while (k <= j) {
j -= k;
k /= 2;
}
j += k;
}
return(data);
}
console.log(bitReversal2([0,1]));
console.log(bitReversal2([0,1,2,3]));
console.log(bitReversal2([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7]));
console.log(bitReversal2([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]));
console.log(bitReversal2(["a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","i","j","k","l","m","n","o","p"]));
First off, thanks for everyone's help in answering my question. I was talking to the person who is helping me, and I think I understand my C++ code now. Maybe my question is kind unclear, but what I am trying to do is implementing FFT using C++. The C++ code I gave in the question is just the first half of the FFT source code that I found online. Essentially, this part of the C++ code is sorting the inputs into real and imaginary numbers, store the real numbers into the odd index, and imaginary numbers into the even index. (real_0, imag_0, real_1, imag_1, real_2, imag_2,.....) with index starts at 1 because we don't need to swap the zeroth index.
The swap operation below is swapping the real and imaginary numbers.
tempr = data[j]; data[j] = data[i]; data[i] = tempr;
tempr = data[j+1]; data[j+1] = data[i+1]; data[i+1] = tempr;
For example, we have an array length of 8 (nn=8), then 2*nn=16, and we separate our inputs into real and imag numbers and store it into an array of 16. So The first time going through the for loop of the C++ code, my j=1, i=1, it will skip the if and while statements, now in the second for loop, j=9, i=3, so the if statement will be true and data[9], data[3] will be swapped, data[9+1] and data[3+1] will be swapped. This is doing the bit reversal because index 3 and 4 has the real and imag number of the first input, and index 9 and 10 has the real and imag number of the fourth number.
As a result, 001 = 1 (fist input)
100 = 4 (fourth input)
is swapped, so, this is doing the bit reversal using the indexes.
I don't really understand the while loop yet, but I know from #m69, that it is just a way of setting a sequence, so that it can do bit reversal. Well helpful my explanation on my own question is kind clear to people who has the same questions. Once again, thanks everyone.
Related
I am sure the running time of this nested loop is O(N*log(N)). The running time of the inner loop is log(N) and the outher loop is N.
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
for (int j = 1; j <= i; j *= 2) {
}
}
In the inner Loop what if I change j *= 2 to j *= 3. How is the result going to change in this case?
#Kevin is completely right, but I thought I would show some experimental results. You can easily test this out by creating a counter that gets incremented inside each inner loop iteration and running for different values of N. Then a fit can be made of the form time = a * N * log(N). For the case j *= 2, we get a coefficient a = 1.28. For j *= 3, we get a = 0.839.
I generated this figure using the MATLAB script below:
clear
clc
close all
nmin = 10;
nmax = 1000;
count1 = zeros(nmax - nmin + 1, 1);
for n = nmin: nmax
k = 0;
for i = 0: n - 1
j = 1;
while (j <= i)
j = j * 2;
k = k + 1;
end
end
count1(n - nmin + 1) = k;
end
ns = (nmin: nmax)';
figure
hold on
plot(ns, count1, '--')
a1 = mean(count1 ./ (ns .* log(ns)))
fit1 = a1 * ns .* log(ns);
plot(ns, fit1)
%%
count2 = zeros(nmax - nmin + 1, 1);
for n = nmin: nmax
k = 0;
for i = 0: n - 1
j = 1;
while (j <= i)
j = j * 3;
k = k + 1;
end
end
count2(n - nmin + 1) = k;
end
ns = (nmin: nmax)';
plot(ns, count2, '-.')
a2 = mean(count2 ./ (ns .* log(ns)))
fit2 = a2 * ns .* log(ns);
plot(ns, fit2)
xlabel('N')
ylabel('Time complexity')
legend('j *= 2', 'j *= 2 fit', 'j *= 3', 'j *= 3 fit', 'Location', 'NorthWest')
It will still be logarithmic. However, it will be scaled by a constant factor (which is irrelevant in Big O analysis).
The effect is that the base of the logarithm changes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm#Change_of_base).
----------[ j = 2 * j ] for j < i:-------------
j = 2*1 = 2 =>2^1
2*2 = 4 =>2^2
2*4 = 8 =>2^3
............. 2^k = n say n==i
if log applied on both side 2^k = n
log(2^k) = logn
k = log_2(N) where 2 is the base
----------[ j = 3 * j ] for j < i:-------------
j = 3*1 = 3 =>3^1
3*3 = 9 =>3^2
3*9 = 27 =>2^3
.............loop stop when 3^k = n say n==i
if log applied on both side 3^k = n
log(3^k) = logn
k = log_3(N) where 3 is the base
This is a recent interview question from Google:
We define f(X, Y) as number of different corresponding bits in binary
representation of X and Y. For example, f(2, 7) = 2, since binary
representation of 2 and 7 are 010 and 111, respectively. The first and
the third bit differ, so f(2, 7) = 2.
You are given an array of N positive integers, A1, A2 ,…, AN. Find sum
of f(Ai, Aj) for all pairs (i, j) such that 1 ≤ i, j ≤ N
For example:
A=[1, 3, 5]
We return
f(1, 1) + f(1, 3) + f(1, 5) + f(3, 1) + f(3, 3) + f(3, 5) + f(5, 1) +
f(5, 3) + f(5, 5) =
0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 0 = 8
I could think of this solution which is O(n^2)
int numSetBits(unsigned int A) {
int count = 0;
while(A != 0) {
A = A & (A-1);
count++;
}
return count;
}
int count_diff_bits(int a, int b)
{
int x = a ^ b;
return numSetBits(x);
}
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
sum += count_diff_bits(A[i], A[j]);
}
}
Another approach i can think of is (considering that each element contains only one binary digit):
Start from the end of the array
keep a count of 1's and 0's found so far
If the current element is 1, then it will contribute count_of_zeros to the final sum
Continue like this till we reach the start of the array.
Is this approach correct.
Iterate the array, and count number of "on" bits in each bit index, for example [1, 3, 5]:
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 1
-----
1 1 3
Now, for each bit counter, calculate:
[bit count] * [array size - bit count] * 2
and sum for all bits...
With example above:
3 * (3 - 3) * 2 = 0
1 * (3 - 1) * 2 = 4
1 * (3 - 1) * 2 = 4
total = 8
To show why this works, lets look at a subset of the problem, using a single bit. Let's see what happens if we have an array with: [1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1]. Our count is 4 and size is 7. If we examine the first bit with all the bits in the array (including self, as in the question), we get:
1 xor 1 = 0
1 xor 1 = 0
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 1 = 0
1 xor 0 = 1
1 xor 1 = 0
As can be seen, the contribution of this bit is the number of "off" bits. The same holds true for any other "on" bit. We could say that each "on" bit counts as the number of "off" bits:
[bit count] * [array size - bit count]
And where does the multiplication by 2 comes from? well, since we do the same with the "off" bits, except that for these, the contribution is the number of "on" bits:
[array size - bit count] * [bit count]
which of course is the same as above, and we can just multiply...
Complexity is O(n*k) where k is number of bits (32 in your code).
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
#define MOD 1000000007ll
using namespace std;
typedef long long LL;
int solve(int arr[], int n) {
int ans = 0;
// traverse over all bits
for(int i = 0; i < 31; i++) {
// count number of elements with ith bit = 0
long long count = 0;
for(int j = 0; j < n; j++) if ( ( arr[j] & ( 1 << i ) ) ) count++;
// add to answer count * (n - count) * 2
ans += (count * ((LL)n - count) * 2ll) % MOD;
if(ans >= MOD) ans -= MOD;
}
return ans;
}
int main() {
int arr[] = {1, 3, 5};
int n = sizeof arr / sizeof arr[0];
cout << solve(arr, n) << endl;
return 0;
}
I implemented the following Cholesky decomposition algorithm using OpenCL. The code is exhibiting random behavior. It matches the cpu output only some times. Can someone please help me to figure out what is wrong with my implementation.
Here is the algorithm:
procedure CHOLESKY(A)
int i, j, k;
for k := 0 to n − 1 do /* 1st loop */
/* Obtain the square root of the diagonal element. */
A[k, k] := A[k, k];
for j := k + 1 to n − 1 do /* 2nd loop */
/* The division step. */
A[k, j] := A[k, j]/A[k, k];
end for
for i := k + 1 to n − 1 do /* 3rd loop */
for j := i to n − 1 do /* 4th loop */
/* The elimination step. */
A[i, j] := A[i, j] - A[k, i] × A[k, j];
end for
end for
end for
Methodology to parallelize the above algorithm:
From the algorithm, the elimination step is the most expensive. So I have the outermost loop
in the host code, and I call the kernel within the loop. A single run of the kernel basically
corresponds to a single iteration of the 3rd loop. Therefore, I launch (n-1 )- (k+1) + 1 work groups. The number of work items within a workgroup is set to n/2. The 2nd for loop is also computed within the kernel, but I allow only the first workgroup to do it.
RELEVANT HOST CODE
// for a 10 X 10 matrix, MATRIX_SIZE = 10
localWorkSize[0] = MATRIX_SIZE/2;
stride = MATRIX_SIZE/2;
cl_event event;
for(k = 0; k < MATRIX_SIZE; k++)
{
int isize = (MATRIX_SIZE-1) - (k+1) + 1;
int num_blocks = isize;
if(num_blocks <= 0)
num_blocks = 1;
globalWorkSize[0] = num_blocks * WA/2;
errcode = clSetKernelArg(clKernel, 0, sizeof(int), (void *)&k);
errcode |= clSetKernelArg(clKernel, 1, sizeof(cl_mem), (void *)&d_A);
errcode |= clSetKernelArg(clKernel, 2, sizeof(int), (void *)&stride);
errcode = clEnqueueNDRangeKernel(clCommandQueue,
clKernel, 1, NULL, globalWorkSize,
localWorkSize, 0, NULL, &event);
OpenCL_CheckError(errcode, "clEnqueueNDRangeKernel");
clFinish(clCommandQueue);
}
KERNEL CODE
__kernel void
batchedCholesky(__global float *U, int k, int stride)
{
int tx = get_global_id(0);
unsigned int j;
unsigned int num_rows = MATRIX_SIZE;
if(tx==0)
{
// Take the square root of the diagonal element
U[k * num_rows + k] = sqrt(U[k * num_rows + k]);
}
barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE);
int offset = (k+1); //From original loop
int jstart = get_local_id(0) + offset;
int jstep = stride;
int jtop = num_rows - 1;
int jbottom = (k + 1);
//Do work for this i iteration
//Division step
if(get_group_id(0) == 0)
{
for(j = jstart; (j >= jbottom) && (j <= jtop); j+=jstep)
{
U[k * num_rows + j] /= U[k * num_rows + k]; // Division step
}
}
barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE);
j = 0;
int i = get_group_id(0) + (k+1);
offset = i;
jstart = get_local_id(0) + offset;
jbottom = i;
for( j = jstart; j >= jbottom && j <= jtop; j += jstep)
U[i * num_rows + j] -= U[k * num_rows + i] * U[k * num_rows + j];
barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE);
}
Not all of your work items execute at the same time, they may run in batches. So your code running prior to CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE won't include every value. That may be the source of your errors.
If you require global synchronization, use multiple kernels.
Is there a way to find a number of rectangular submatrices containing all zeros with a complexity smaller than O(n^3), where n is the dimension of given matrix?
Here is a solution O(n² log n).
First, let's convert the main problem to something like this:
For given histogram, find the number of submatrices containing all zeros.
How to convert it ?
For each position calculate the height of column that start on that position and contain only zeros.
Example:
10010 01101
00111 12000
00001 -> 23110
01101 30020
01110 40001
It can be easily find in O(n²).
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
for(int j = 1; j <= m; j++)
up[i][j] = arr[i][j] ? 0 : 1 + up[i - 1][j];
Now we can consider each row as histogram with given heights.
Let's solve the problem with histogram.
Our goal is to travel all heights from left to right, and on each step we are going to update array L.
This array for each height is going to contain maximum widths so that we can make a rectangle of this width from current position, to the left and of given height.
Consider example:
0
0 0
0 000
00000 -> heights: 6 3 4 4 5 2
000000
000000
L[6]: 1 0 0 0 0 0
L[5]: 1 0 0 0 1 0
L[4]: 1 0 1 2 3 0
L[3]: 1 2 3 4 5 0
L[2]: 1 2 3 4 5 6
L[1]: 1 2 3 4 5 6
steps: 1 2 3 4 5 6
As you can see if we add all those numbers we will receive an answer for given histogram.
We can simply update array L in O(n), however we can also do it in O(log n) by using segment tree (with lazy propagation) that can add in interval, set value in interval and get sum from interval.
In each step we just add 1 to interval [1, height] and set 0 in interval[height + 1, maxHeight] and get sum from interval [1, maxHeight].
height - height of current column in histogram.
maxHeight - maximum height of column in histogram.
And thats how you can get O(n² * log n) solution :)
Here is main code in C++:
const int MAXN = 1000;
int n;
int arr[MAXN + 5][MAXN + 5]; // stores given matrix
int up[MAXN + 5][MAXN + 5]; // heights of columns of zeros
long long answer;
long long calculate(int *h, int maxh) { // solve it for histogram
clearTree();
long long result = 0;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
add(1, h[i]); // add 1 to [1, h[i]]
set(h[i] + 1, maxh); // set 0 in [h[i] + 1, maxh];
result += query(); // get sum from [1, maxh]
}
return result;
}
int main() {
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(0);
cin >> n;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
for(int j = 1; j <= n; j++)
cin >> arr[i][j]; // read the data
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
for(int j = 1; j <= n; j++)
up[i][j] = arr[i][j] ? 0 : 1 + up[i - 1][j]; // calculate values of up
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
answer += calculate(up[i], i); // calculate for each row
cout << answer << endl;
}
Here is the beginning of code, segment tree:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// interval-interval tree that stores sums
const int p = 11;
int sums[1 << p];
int lazy[1 << p];
int need[1 << p];
const int M = 1 << (p - 1);
void update(int node) {
if(need[node] == 1) { // add
sums[node] += lazy[node];
if(node < M) {
need[node * 2] = need[node * 2] == 2 ? 2 : 1;
need[node * 2 + 1] = need[node * 2 + 1] == 2 ? 2 : 1;
lazy[node * 2] += lazy[node] / 2;
lazy[node * 2 + 1] += lazy[node] / 2;
}
} else if(need[node] == 2) { // set
sums[node] = lazy[node];
if(node < M) {
need[node * 2] = need[node * 2 + 1] = 2;
lazy[node * 2] = lazy[node] / 2;
lazy[node * 2 + 1] = lazy[node] / 2;
}
}
need[node] = 0;
lazy[node] = 0;
}
void insert(int node, int l, int r, int lq, int rq, int value, int id) {
update(node);
if(lq <= l && r <= rq) {
need[node] = id;
lazy[node] = value * (r - l + 1);
update(node);
return;
}
int mid = (l + r) / 2;
if(lq <= mid) insert(node * 2, l, mid, lq, rq, value, id);
if(mid + 1 <= rq) insert(node * 2 + 1, mid + 1, r, lq, rq, value, id);
sums[node] = sums[node * 2] + sums[node * 2 + 1];
}
int query() {
return sums[1]; // we only need to know sum of the whole interval
}
void clearTree() {
for(int i = 1; i < 1 << p; i++)
sums[i] = lazy[i] = need[i] = 0;
}
void add(int left, int right) {
insert(1, 0, M - 1, left, right, 1, 1);
}
void set(int left, int right) {
insert(1, 0, M - 1, left, right, 0, 2);
}
// end of the tree
So I just got back for the ACM Programing competition and did pretty well but there was one problem that not one team got.
The Problem.
Start with an integer N0 which is greater than 0. Let N1 be the number of ones in the binary representation of N0. So, if N0 = 27, N1 = 4. For all i > 0, let Ni be the number of ones in the binary representation of Ni-1. This sequence will always converge to one. For any starting number, N0, let K be the minimum value of i >= 0 for which N1 = 1. For example, if N0 = 31, then N1 = 5, N2 = 2, N3 = 1, so K = 3.
Given a range of consecutive numbers and a value of X how many numbers in the range have a K value equal to X?
Input
There will be several test cases in the input. Each test case will consist of three integers on a single line:
LO HI X
Where LO and HI (1 <= LO <= HI <= 10^18) are the lower and upper limits of a range of integers, and X (0 <= X <= 10) is the target value for K. The input will end with a line of three 0s.
Output
For each test case output a single integer, representing the number of integers in the range from LO to HI (inclusive) which have a K value equal to X in the input. Print each Integer on its own line with no spaces. Do not print any blank lines between answers.
Sample Input
31 31 3
31 31 1
27 31 1
27 31 2
1023 1025 1
1023 1025 2
0 0 0
Sample Output
1
0
0
3
1
1
If you guys want I can include our answer or our problem, because finding for a small range is easy but I will give you a hint first your program needs to run in seconds not minutes. We had a successful solution but not an efficient algorithm to use a range similar to
48238 10^18 9
Anyway good luck and if the community likes these we had some more we could not solve that could be some good brain teasers for you guys. The competition allows you to use Python, C++, or Java—all three are acceptable in an answer.
So as a hint my coach said to think of how binary numbers count rather than checking every bit. I think that gets us a lot closer.
I think a key is first understanding the pattern of K values and how rapidly it grows. Basically, you have:
K(1) = 0
K(X) = K(bitcount(X))+1 for X > 1
So finding the smallest X values for a given K we see
K(1) = 0
K(2) = 1
K(3) = 2
K(7) = 3
K(127) = 4
K(170141183460469231731687303715884105727) = 5
So for an example like 48238 10^18 9 the answer is trivially 0. K=0 only for 1, and K=1 only for powers of 2, so in the range of interest, we'll pretty much only see K values of 2, 3 or 4, and never see K >= 5
edit
Ok, so we're looking for an algorithm to count the number of values with K=2,3,4 in a range of value LO..HI without iterating over the entire range. So the first step is to find the number of values in the range with bitcount(x)==i for i = 1..59 (since we only care about values up to 10^18 and 10^18 < 2^60). So break down the range lo..hi into subranges that are a power of 2 size and differ only in their lower n bits -- a range of the form x*(2^n)..(x+1)*(2^n)-1. We can break down the arbitray lo..hi range into such subranges easily. For each such subrange there will be choose(n, i) values with i+bitcount(x) set bits.
So we just add all the subranges together to get a vector of counts for 1..59, which we then iterate over, adding together those elements with the same K value to get our answer.
edit (fixed again to be be C89 compatible and work for lo=1/k=0)
Here's a C program to do what I previously described:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <assert.h>
int bitcount(long long x) {
int rv = 0;
while(x) { rv++; x &= x-1; }
return rv; }
long long choose(long long m, long long n) {
long long rv = 1;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
rv *= m-i;
rv /= i+1; }
return rv; }
void bitcounts_p2range(long long *counts, long long base, int l2range) {
int i;
assert((base & ((1LL << l2range) - 1)) == 0);
counts += bitcount(base);
for (i = 0; i <= l2range; i++)
counts[i] += choose(l2range, i); }
void bitcounts_range(long long *counts, long long lo, long long hi) {
int l2range = 0;
while (lo + (1LL << l2range) - 1 <= hi) {
if (lo & (1LL << l2range)) {
bitcounts_p2range(counts, lo, l2range);
lo += 1LL << l2range; }
l2range++; }
while (l2range >= 0) {
if (lo + (1LL << l2range) - 1 <= hi) {
bitcounts_p2range(counts, lo, l2range);
lo += 1LL << l2range; }
l2range--; }
assert(lo == hi+1); }
int K(int x) {
int rv = 0;
while(x > 1) {
x = bitcount(x);
rv++; }
return rv; }
int main() {
long long counts[64];
long long lo, hi, total;
int i, k;
while (scanf("%lld%lld%d", &lo, &hi, &k) == 3) {
if (lo < 1 || lo > hi || k < 0) break;
if (lo == 0 || hi == 0 || k == 0) break;
total = 0;
if (lo == 1) {
lo++;
if (k == 0) total++; }
memset(counts, 0, sizeof(counts));
bitcounts_range(counts, lo, hi);
for (i = 1; i < 64; i++)
if (K(i)+1 == k)
total += counts[i];
printf("%lld\n", total); }
return 0; }
which runs just fine for values up to 2^63-1 (LONGLONG_MAX).
For 48238 1000000000000000000 3 it gives 513162479025364957, which certainly seems plausible
edit
giving the inputs of
48238 1000000000000000000 1
48238 1000000000000000000 2
48238 1000000000000000000 3
48238 1000000000000000000 4
gives outputs of
44
87878254941659920
513162479025364957
398959266032926842
Those add up to 999999999999951763 which is correct. The value for k=1 is correct (there are 44 powers of two in that range 2^16 up to 2^59). So while I'm not sure the other 3 values are correct, they're certainly plausible.
The idea behind this answer can help you develop very fast solution. Having ranges 0..2^N the complexity of a potential algorithm would be O(N) in the worst case (Assuming that complexity of a long arithmetic is O(1)) If programmed correctly it should easily handle N = 1000000 in a matter of milliseconds.
Imagine we have the following values:
LO = 0; (0000000000000000000000000000000)
HI = 2147483647; (1111111111111111111111111111111)
The lowest possible N1 in range LO..HI is 0
The highest possible N1 in range LO..HI is 31
So the computation of N2..NN part is done only for one of 32 values (i.e. 0..31).
Which can be done simply, even without a computer.
Now lets compute the amount of N1=X for a range of values LO..HI
When we have X = 0 we have count(N1=X) = 1 this is the following value:
1 0000000000000000000000000000000
When we have X = 1 we have count(N1=X) = 31 these are the following values:
01 1000000000000000000000000000000
02 0100000000000000000000000000000
03 0010000000000000000000000000000
...
30 0000000000000000000000000000010
31 0000000000000000000000000000001
When we have X = 2 we have the following pattern:
1100000000000000000000000000000
How many unique strings can be formed with 29 - '0' and 2 - '1'?
Imagine the rightmost '1'(#1) is cycling from left to right, we get the following picture:
01 1100000000000000000000000000000
02 1010000000000000000000000000000
03 1001000000000000000000000000000
...
30 1000000000000000000000000000001
Now we've got 30 unique strings while moving the '1'(#1) from left to right, it is now impossible to
create a unique string by moving the '1'(#1) in any direction. This means we should move '1'(#2) to the right,
let's also reset the position of '1'(#1) as left as possible remaining uniqueness, we get:
01 0110000000000000000000000000000
now we do the cycling of '1'(#1) once again
02 0101000000000000000000000000000
03 0100100000000000000000000000000
...
29 0100000000000000000000000000001
Now we've got 29 unique strings, continuing this whole operation 28 times we get the following expression
count(N1=2) = 30 + 29 + 28 + ... + 1 = 465
When we have X = 3 the picture remains similar but we are moving '1'(#1), '1'(#2), '1'(#3)
Moving the '1'(#1) creates 29 unique strings, when we start moving '1'(#2) we get
29 + 28 + ... + 1 = 435 unique strings, after that we are left to process '1'(#3) so we have
29 + 28 + ... + 1 = 435
28 + ... + 1 = 406
...
+ 1 = 1
435 + 406 + 378 + 351 + 325 + 300 + 276 +
253 + 231 + 210 + 190 + 171 + 153 + 136 +
120 + 105 + 091 + 078 + 066 + 055 + 045 +
036 + 028 + 021 + 015 + 010 + 006 + 003 + 001 = 4495
Let's try to solve the general case i.e. when we have N zeros and M ones.
Overall amount of permutations for the string of length (N + M) is equal to (N + M)!
The amount of '0' duplicates in this string is equal to N!
The amount of '1' duplicates in this string is equal to M!
thus receiving overall amount of unique strings formed of N zeros and M ones is
(N + M)! 32! 263130836933693530167218012160000000
F(N, M) = ============= => ========== = ====================================== = 4495
(N!) * (M!) 3! * 29! 6 * 304888344611713860501504000000
Edit:
F(N, M) = Binomial(N + M, M)
Now let's consider a real life example:
LO = 43797207; (0000010100111000100101011010111)
HI = 1562866180; (1011101001001110111001000000100)
So how do we apply our unique permutations formula to this example? Since we don't know how
many '1' is located below LO and how many '1' is located above HI.
So lets count these permutations below LO and above HI.
Lets remember how we cycled '1'(#1), '1'(#2), ...
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 2080374784
1111010000000000000000000000000 => 2046820352
1111001000000000000000000000000 => 2030043136
1111000000000000000000000000001 => 2013265921
1110110000000000000000000000000 => 1979711488
1110101000000000000000000000000 => 1962934272
1110100100000000000000000000000 => 1954545664
1110100010000000000000000000001 => 1950351361
As you see this cycling process decreases the decimal values smoothly. So we need to count amount of
cycles until we reach HI value. But we shouldn't be counting these values by one because
the worst case can generate up to 32!/(16!*16!) = 601080390 cycles, which we will be cycling very long :)
So we need cycle chunks of '1' at once.
Having our example we would want to count the amount of cycles of a transformation
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 1011101000000000000000000000000
1011101001001110111001000000100
So how many cycles causes the transformation
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 1011101000000000000000000000000
?
Lets see, the transformation:
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 1110110000000000000000000000000
is equal to following set of cycles:
01 1111100000000000000000000000000
02 1111010000000000000000000000000
...
27 1111000000000000000000000000001
28 1110110000000000000000000000000
So we need 28 cycles to transform
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 1110110000000000000000000000000
How many cycles do we need to transform
1111100000000000000000000000000 => 1101110000000000000000000000000
performing following moves we need:
1110110000000000000000000000000 28 cycles
1110011000000000000000000000000 27 cycles
1110001100000000000000000000000 26 cycles
...
1110000000000000000000000000011 1 cycle
and 1 cycle for receiving:
1101110000000000000000000000000 1 cycle
thus receiving 28 + 27 + ... + 1 + 1 = 406 + 1
but we have seen this value before and it was the result for the amount of unique permutations, which was
computed for 2 '1' and 27 '0'. This means that amount of cycles while moving
11100000000000000000000000000 => 01110000000000000000000000000
is equal to moving
_1100000000000000000000000000 => _0000000000000000000000000011
plus one additional cycle
so this means if we have M zeros and N ones and want to move the chunk of U '1' to the right we will need to
perform the following amount of cycles:
(U - 1 + M)!
1 + =============== = f(U, M)
M! * (U - 1)!
Edit:
f(U, M) = 1 + Binomial(U - 1 + M, M)
Now let's come back to our real life example:
LO = 43797207; (0000010100111000100101011010111)
HI = 1562866180; (1011101001001110111001000000100)
so what we want to do is count the amount cycles needed to perform the following
transformations (suppose N1 = 6)
1111110000000000000000000000000 => 1011101001000000000000000000000
1011101001001110111001000000100
this is equal to:
1011101001000000000000000000000 1011101001000000000000000000000
------------------------------- -------------------------------
_111110000000000000000000000000 => _011111000000000000000000000000 f(5, 25) = 118756
_____11000000000000000000000000 => _____01100000000000000000000000 f(2, 24) = 301
_______100000000000000000000000 => _______010000000000000000000000 f(1, 23) = 24
________10000000000000000000000 => ________01000000000000000000000 f(1, 22) = 23
thus resulting 119104 'lost' cycles which are located above HI
Regarding LO, there is actually no difference in what direction we are cycling
so for computing LO we can do reverse cycling:
0000010100111000100101011010111 0000010100111000100101011010111
------------------------------- -------------------------------
0000000000000000000000000111___ => 0000000000000000000000001110___ f(3, 25) = 2926
00000000000000000000000011_____ => 00000000000000000000000110_____ f(2, 24) = 301
Thus resulting 3227 'lost' cycles which are located below LO this means that
overall amount of lost cycles = 119104 + 3227 = 122331
overall amount of all possible cycles = F(6, 25) = 736281
N1 in range 43797207..1562866180 is equal to 736281 - 122331 = 613950
I wont provide the remaining part of the solution. It is not that hard to grasp the remaining part. Good luck!
I think it's a problem in Discrete mathematics,
assuming LOW is 0,
otherwise we can insert a function for summing numbers below LOW,
from numbers shown i understand the longest number will consist up to 60 binary digit at most
alg(HIGH,k)
l=len(HIGH)
sum=0;
for(i=0;i<l;i++)
{
count=(l choose i);
nwia=numbers_with_i_above(i,HIGH);
if canreach(i,k) sum+=(count-nwia);
}
all the numbers appear
non is listed twice
numbers_with_i_above is trivial
canreach with numbers up to 60 is easy
len is it length of a binary represention
Zobgib,
The key to this problem is not to understand how rapidly the growth of K's pattern grows, but HOW it grows, itself. The first step in this is to understand (as your coach said) how binary numbers count, as this determines everything about how K is determined. Binary numbers follow a pattern that is distinct when counting the number of positive bits. Its a single progressive repetitive pattern. I am going to demonstrate in an unusual way...
Assume i is an integer value. Assume b is the number of positive bits in i
i = 1;
b = 1;
i = 2; 3;
b = 1; 2;
i = 4; 5; 6; 7;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3;
i = 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 4;
i = 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 4; 2; 3; 3; 4; 3; 4; 4; 5;
I assure you, this pattern holds to infinity, but if needed you
should be able to find or construct a proof easily.
If you look at the data above, you'll notice a distinct pattern related to 2^n. Each time you have an integer exponent of 2, the pattern will reset by including the each term of previous pattern, and then each term of the previous pattern incremented by 1. As such, to get K, you just apply the new number to the pattern above. The key is to find a single expression (that is efficient) to receive your number of bits.
For demonstration, yet again, you can further extrapolate a new pattern off of this, because it is static and follows the same progression. Below is the original data modified with its K value (based on the recursion).
Assume i is an integer value. Assume b is the number of positive bits in i
i = 1;
b = 1;
K = 1;
i = 2; 3;
b = 1; 2;
K = 1; 2;
i = 4; 5; 6; 7;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3;
K = 1; 2; 2; 3;
i = 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 4;
K = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 2;
i = 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31;
b = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 4; 2; 3; 3; 4; 3; 4; 4; 5;
K = 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 2; 2; 3; 3; 2; 3; 2; 2; 3;
If you notice, K follows a similar patterning, with a special condition... Everytime b is a power of 2, it actually lowers the K value by 2. Soooo, if you follow a binary progression, you should be able to easily map your K values. Since this pattern is dependant on powers of 2, and the pattern is dependant upon finding the nearest power of 2 and starting there, I propose the following solution. Take your LOW value and find the nearest power of 2 (p) such that 2^p < LOW. This can be done by "counting the bits" for just the lowest number. Again, once you know which exponent it is, you don't have to count the bits for any other number. You just increment through the pattern and you will have your b and hence K (which is following the same pattern).
Note: If you are particularly observant, you can use the previous b or K to determine the next. If the current i is odd, add 1 to the previous b. If the current i is divisible by 4, then you decrement b by either 1 or 2, dependent upon whether it's in the first 1/2 of the pattern or second half. And, of course, if i is a power of 2, start over at 1.
Fuzzical Logic
Pseudo-code Example (non-Optimized)
{ var LOW, HIGH
var power = 0
//Get Nearest Power Of 2
for (var i = 0 to 60) {
// Compare using bitwise AND
if (LOW bitAND (2 ^ i) = (2 ^ i)) {
if ((2 ^ i) <= LOW) {
set power to i
}
else {
// Found the Power: end the for loop
set i to 61
}
}
}
// Automatically 1 at a Power of 2
set numOfBits to 1
array numbersWithPositiveBits with 64 integers = 0
// Must create the pattern from Power of 2
set foundLOW to false
for (var j = (2^power) to HIGH) {
set lenOfPatten to (power + 1)
// Don't record until we have found the LOW value
if ((foundLOW is false) bitAND (j is equal to LOW)) {
set foundLOW to true
}
// If j is odd, increment numOfBits
if ((1 bitAND j) is equal to 1) {
increment numOfBits
}
else if (j modulus 4 == 0) {
decrement numOfBits accordingly //Figure this one out yourself, please
}
else if ((j - (2^power)) == (power + 1)) {
// We are at the next power
increment power
// Start pattern over
set numOfBits to 1
}
// Record if appropriate
if (foundLOW is equal to true) {
increment element numOfBits in array numbersWithPositiveBits
}
}
// From here, derive your K values.
You can solve this efficiently as follows:
ret = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= 64; i++) {
if (computeK(i) != desiredK) continue;
ret += numBelow(HIGH, i) - numBelow(LO - 1, i);
}
return ret;
The function numBelow(high, numSet) computes the number of integers less than or equal to high and greater than zero that have numSet bits set. To implement numBelow(high, numSet) efficiently, you can use something like the following:
numBelow(high, numSet) {
t = floor(lg(high));
ret = 0;
if (numBitsSet(high) == numSet) ret++;
while (numSet > 0 && t > 0) {
ret += nchoosek(t - 1, numSet);
numSet--;
while (--t > 0 && (((1 << t) & high) == 0));
}
return ret;
}
This is a full working example with c++17
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
#define BASE_MAX 61
typedef unsigned long long ll;
ll combination[BASE_MAX][BASE_MAX];
vector<vector<ll>> NK(4);
int count_bit(ll n) {
int ret = 0;
while (n) {
if (n & 1) {
ret++;
}
n >>= 1;
}
return ret;
}
int get_leftmost_bit_index(ll n) {
int ret = 0;
while (n > 1) {
ret++;
n >>= 1;
}
return ret;
}
void pre_calculate() {
for (int i = 0; i < BASE_MAX; i++)
combination[i][0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < BASE_MAX; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j < BASE_MAX; j++) {
combination[i][j] = combination[i - 1][j] + combination[i - 1][j - 1];
}
}
NK[0].push_back(1);
for (int i = 2; i < BASE_MAX; i++) {
int bitCount = count_bit(i);
if (find(NK[0].begin(), NK[0].end(), bitCount) != NK[0].end()) {
NK[1].push_back(i);
}
}
for (int i = 1; i < BASE_MAX; i++) {
int bitCount = count_bit(i);
if (find(NK[1].begin(), NK[1].end(), bitCount) != NK[1].end()) {
NK[2].push_back(i);
}
}
for (int i = 1; i < BASE_MAX; i++) {
int bitCount = count_bit(i);
if (find(NK[2].begin(), NK[2].end(), bitCount) != NK[2].end()) {
NK[3].push_back(i);
}
}
}
ll how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(ll lo, ll hi, int bit_count) {
if (bit_count == 0) {
if (lo == 0) return 1;
else return 0;
}
if (lo == hi) {
return count_bit(lo) == bit_count;
}
int lo_leftmost = get_leftmost_bit_index(lo); // 100 -> 2
int hi_leftmost = get_leftmost_bit_index(hi); // 1101 -> 3
if (lo_leftmost == hi_leftmost) {
return how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(lo & ~(1LL << lo_leftmost), hi & ~(1LL << hi_leftmost),
bit_count - 1);
}
if (lo != 0) {
return how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(0, hi, bit_count) -
how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(0, lo - 1, bit_count);
}
ll ret = combination[hi_leftmost][bit_count];
ret += how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(1LL << hi_leftmost, hi, bit_count);
return ret;
}
int main(void) {
pre_calculate();
while (true) {
ll LO, HI;
int X;
scanf("%lld%lld%d", &LO, &HI, &X);
if (LO == 0 && HI == 0 && X == 0)
break;
switch (X) {
case 0:
cout << (LO == 1) << endl;
break;
case 1: {
int ret = 0;
ll power2 = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < BASE_MAX; i++) {
power2 *= 2;
if (power2 > HI)
break;
if (power2 >= LO)
ret++;
}
cout << ret << endl;
break;
}
case 2:
case 3:
case 4: {
vector<ll> &addedBitsSizes = NK[X - 1];
ll ret = 0;
for (auto bit_count_to_added: addedBitsSizes) {
ll result = how_many_numbers_have_n_bit_in_range(LO, HI, bit_count_to_added);
ret += result;
}
cout << ret << endl;
break;
}
default:
cout << 0 << endl;
break;
}
}
return 0;
}