Count the number of identical trees in a given Tree, where a tree is said to be identical if the values of its node is same as its the value of all its children nodes, We can make the assumption that the tree is a binary tree
For each node I need to check if its is an identical tree
hence for every node I traverse the tree below it, i e the node and its tree to see if they are identical .
since I do a post order traversal to count tree,
Im not sure how to calculate the time complexity
Related
My purpose is to first locate(search) a certain node in the tree(AVL or balanced binary tree), and then count the number of nodes which are under it. The whole operation works in O(logn) times. Is it achievable?
Yes it is, for that you need an implementation of AVL that keeps for each node the number of nodes that it has in its sub-tree.
Now, you only need to locate the desired node, and then look in its 'size' field to know how many nodes are in its sub-tree.
I am a beginner in the field of data structures, I am studying binary trees and in my textbook there's a tree which is not a binary tree but I am not able to make out why the tree is not a binary tree because every node in the tree has atmost two children.
According to Wikipedia definition of binary tree is "In computer science, a binary tree is a treedata structure in which each node has at most two children, which are referred to as the left child and the right child."
The tree in the picture seems to satisfy the condition as mentioned in the definition of binary tree.
I want an explanation for why the tree is not a binary tree?
This is not even a tree, let alone binary tree. Node I has two parents which violates the tree property.
I got the answer, This not even a tree because a tree is connected acyclic graph also a binary tree is a finite set of elements that is either empty or is partitioned into three disjoint subsets. The first subset contains a single element called the root of the tree. The other two subsets are themselves binary trees called the left and right subtrees of the original tree.
Here the word disjoint answers the problem.
It's not a binary tree because of node I
This can be ABEI or ACFI
This would mean the node can be represented by 2 binary numbers which is incorrect
Each node has either 0 or 1 parents. 0 in the case of the root node. 1 otherwise. I has 2 parents E and F
We are given a tree with n nodes in form of a pointer to its root node, where each node contains a pointer to its parent, left child and right child, and also a key which is an integer. For each node v I want to add additional field v.bigger which should contain number of nodes with key bigger than v.key, that are in a subtree rooted at v. Adding such a field to all nodes of a tree should take O(n log n) time in total.
I'm looking for any hints that would allow me to solve this problem. I tried several heuristics - for example when thinking about doing this problem in bottom-up manner, for a fixed node v, v.left and v.right could provide v with some kind of set (balanced BST?) with operation bigger(x), which for a given x returns a number of elements bigger than x in that set in logarihmic time. The problem is, we would need to merge such sets in O(log n), so this seems as a no-go, as I don't know any ordered set like data structure which supports quick merging.
I also thought about top-down approach - a node v adds one to some u.bigger for some node u if and only if u lies on a simple path to the root and u<v. So v could update all such u's somehow, but I couldn't come up with any reasonable way of doing that...
So, what is the right way of thinking about this problem?
Perform depth-first search in given tree (starting from root node).
When any node is visited for the first time (coming from parent node), add its key to some order-statistics data structure (OSDS). At the same time query OSDS for number of keys larger than current key and initialize v.bigger with negated result of this query.
When any node is visited for the last time (coming from right child), query OSDS for number of keys larger than current key and add the result to v.bigger.
You could apply this algorithm to any rooted trees (not necessarily binary trees). And it does not necessarily need parent pointers (you could use DFS stack instead).
For OSDS you could use either augmented BST or Fenwick tree. In case of Fenwick tree you need to preprocess given tree so that values of the keys are compressed: just copy all the keys to an array, sort it, remove duplicates, then substitute keys by their indexes in this array.
Basic idea:
Using the bottom-up approach, each node will get two ordered lists of the values in the subtree from both sons and then find how many of them are bigger. When finished, pass the combined ordered list upwards.
Details:
Leaves:
Leaves obviously have v.bigger=0. The node above them creates a two item list of the values, updates itself and adds its own value to the list.
All other nodes:
Get both lists from sons and merge them in an ordered way. Since they are already sorted, this is O(number of nodes in subtree). During the merge you can also find how many nodes qualify the condition and get the value of v.bigger for the node.
Why is this O(n logn)?
Every node in the tree counts through the number of nodes in its subtree. This means the root counts all the nodes in the tree, the sons of the root each count (combined) the number of nodes in the tree (yes, yes, -1 for the root) and so on all nodes in the same height count together the number of nodes that are lower. This gives us that the number of nodes counted is number of nodes * height of the tree - which is O(n logn)
What if for each node we keep a separate binary search tree (BST) which consists of nodes of the subtree rooted at that node.
For a node v at level k, merging the two subtrees v.left and v.right which both have O(n/2^(k+1)) elements is O(n/2^k). After forming the BST for this node, we can find v.bigger in O(n/2^(k+1)) time by just counting the elements in the right (traditionally) subtree of the BST. Summing up, we have O(3*n/2^(k+1)) operations for a single node at level k. There are a total of 2^k many level k nodes, therefore we have O(2^k*3*n/2^(k+1)) which is simplified as O(n) (dropping the 3/2 constant). operations at level k. There are log(n) levels, hence we have O(n*log(n)) operations in total.
Given a very large binary tree (i.e. with millions of nodes), how to handle determining the number of nodes in the tree? In other words, given the root node of this tree to a function, the function should return the number of nodes in the tree.
Or let's say how do you check if the Binary Tree is BST if the tree has very large number of nodes?
Walk all nodes and check whatever conditions/metric you need. There is nothing else you can do without additional knowledge about the tree.
You can enforce particular conditions at the time when tree is created (i.e. must be balanced/sorted/whatever) or collect information about tree at creation time (i.e. store and constantly update number of children).
To check if it's a VALID bst you have to visit every node depth first and ensure each node is smaller than the previous.
If you want to evaluate how long that will take for a balanced BST you could get a quick approximation of the size by counting the length of one leg, I believe the total size will be between 2^(n-1) and 2^n-1 inclusive
I want to sum all the values in the leaves of a BST. Apparently, I can't get to the leaves without traversing the whole tree. Is this true? Can I get to the leaves without taking O(N) time?
You realize that the leaves themselves will be at least 1/2 of O(n) anyway?
There is no way to get the leaves of a tree without traversing the whole tree (especially if you want every single leaf), which will unfortunately operate in O(n) time. Are you sure that a tree is the best way to store your data if you want to access all of these leaves? There are other data structures which will allow more efficient access to your data.
To access all leaf nodes of a BST, you will have to traverse all the nodes of BST and that would be of order O(n).
One alternative is to use B+ tree where you can traverse to a leaf node in O(log n) time and after that all leaf nodes can be accessed sequentially to compute the sum. So, in your case it would be O(log n + k), where k is the number of leaf nodes and n is the total number of nodes in the B+ tree.
cheers
You will either have to traverse the tree searching for nodes without children, or modify the structure you are using to represent the tree to include a list of the leaf nodes. This will also necessitate modifying your insert and delete methods to maintain the list (for instance, if you remove the last child from a node, it becomes a leaf node). Unless the tree is very large, it's probably nice enough to just go ahead and traverse the tree.