Problem is simple -
Suppose I have an array of following numbers -
4,1,4,5,7,4,3,1,5
I have to find number of sets of k elements each that can be created from above numbers having largest sum. Two sets are considered to be different if they have at least one different element.
e.g.
if k = 2, then there can be two sets - {7,5} and {7,5}. Note: 5 appears twice in above array.
I think I can start with something like-
1. Sort array
2. Create two arrays. One for different number and an other in parallel for number's occurence.
But I am stuck now. Any suggestions?
The algorithm is as follows:
1) Sort elements in descending order.
2) Look at this array. It may look something like this:
a ... a b ... b c ... c d ...
| <- k -> |
Now obviously all elements a and b will be in the sets with the largest sum. You can't replace any of them with a smaller element, because then the sum wouldn't be the largest possible. So you have no choice here, you have to choose all a and b for any of the sets.
On the other hand only some of the elements c will be in those sets. So the answer is just the number of possibilities, to choose c's to fill the positions left in the sets, after you have taken all larger elements. That is the binomial coefficient:
count of c's choose (k - (count of elements larger than c))
For example for an array (already sorted here)
[9, 8, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
and k = 6, you must choose 9, 8 and both 7's for every set with the largest sum (which is 41). And then you can choose any two out of the four 5's. So the result will be 4 choose 2 = 6.
With the same array and k = 4, the result would be x choose 0 = 1 (that unique set is {9, 8, 7, 7}), with k = 7 the result would be 4 choose 3 = 4, and with k = 9: 2 choose 1 = 2 (choosing any 4 for the set with the largest sum).
EDIT: I edited the answer, because we figured it out that OP needs to count multisets.
First, find the largest k numbers in the array. This is of course easy, and if k is very small, you can do it in O(k) by performing k linear scans. If k is not so small, you can use a binary heap, or a priority queue or just sort the array to do that which is respectively O(n * log(k)) or O(n * log(n)) when using sorting.
Let assume that you have computed k largest numbers. Of course all sets of size k with the largest sum have to contain exactly these k largest numbers and no more other numbers. On the other hand, any different set doesn't have the largest sum.
Let count[i] be the number of occurrences of number i in the input sequence.
Let occ[i] be the number of occurrences of number i in the largest k numbers.
We can compute these both tables in very different ways, for example using a hash table or if input numbers are small, you can use an array indexed by these numbers.
Let B be the array of distinct numbers from the largest k numbers.
Let m be the size of B.
Now let's compute the answer. We will do it in m steps. After i-th step we will have computed the number of different multisets consisting of the first i numbers from B. At the beginning the result is 1 since there is only one empty multiset. In the i-th step, we will multiply the current result by the number of possible chooses of occ[B[i]] elements from count[B[i]] elements, which is equal to binomial(occ[i], count[i])
For example, let's consider your instance with added one more 7 at the end and k set to 3:
k = 3
A = [4, 1, 4, 5, 7, 4, 3, 1, 5, 7]
The largest three numbers in A are 7, 7, 5
At the beginning we have:
count[7] = 2
count[5] = 2
occ[7] = 2
occ[5] = 1
result = 1
B = [7, 5]
We start with the first element in B which is 7. Its count is 2 and its occ is also 2, so we do:
// binomial(2, 2) is 1
result = result * binomial(2, 2)
Next element in B is 5, its count is 2 and its occ is 1, so we do:
// binomial(2, 1) is 2
result = result * binomial(2, 1)
And the final result is 2, since there are two different multisets [7, 7, 5]
I'd create a sorted dictionary of the frequencies of occurrence of the numbers in the input. Then take the two largest numbers and multiply the number of times they occur.
In C++, it could look something like this:
std::vector<int> inputs { 4, 1, 4, 5, 7, 3, 1, 5};
std::map<int, int> counts;
for (auto i : inputs)
++counts[i];
auto last = counts.rbegin();
int largest_count = *last;
int second_count = *++last;
int set_count = largeest_count * second_count;
You can do the following:
1) Sort the elements in descending order;
2) define variable answer=1;
3) Start from the beginning of the array and for each new value you see, count the number of its occurrence (lets call this variable count). every time do: answer = answer * count. The pseudo-code should look like this.
find_count(Array A, K)
{
sort(A,'descending);
int answer=1;
int count=1;
for (int i=1,j=1; i<K && j<A.length;j++)
{
if(A[i] != A[i-1])
{
answer = answer *count;
i++;
count=1;
}
else
count++;
}
return answer;
}
Related
Given a sequence a=(a1,a2....an) from n postive integers. We call Disorder D(ak) of ak=(a1,a2...ak) the diference between ak's max from ak's min. We call Total Disorder the sum all D(ak) for all subsequences from k=2 to k=n. We are looking for a dp algorithm with a recursive solution for b*, witch is a permutation of a,and it achieves minimum D(ak) from k=2 to k=n.
Exmples:
a=(6, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3) then b*=(3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 6)[with D(b*) = 0 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 8]
a=(1, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6) then b*=(3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 1)[with D(b*) = 0 + 0 + 3 + 3 + 5 = 11]
The only thing i was able to prove was that at the end of b* the number will be either the max of a or min of a.
Pls help.
First sort the input array, and then consider building the result permutation backwards from the end towards the start.
For every element you will either remove the first or last element of the sorted array. Also, for every position k, the disorder of the subarray ending at that position is known -- it's just the difference between the two ends of the remaining element array.
To find the optimal selection, then, you can use DP[k,n] = the minimum disorder so far if we've chosen n elements from the front of the sorted array (with the remainder chosen from the back).
DP[k,n] is easily calculated from DP[k+1,n] and DP[k+1,n-1], and the minimum DP[0,?] is the minimum total disorder.
I have a list of integers, and I need to find a way to get the maximum sum of a subset of them, adding elements to the total until the sum is equal to (or greater than) a fixed cutoff. I know this seems similar to the knapsack, but I was unsure whether it was equivalent.
Sorting the array and adding the maximum element until sum <= cutoff does not work. Observe the following list:
list = [6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1]
cutoff = 15
For this list, doing it the naive way results in a sum of 15, which is very sub-optimal. As far as I can see, the maximum you could arrive at using this list is 20, by adding 4 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 6. If this is just a different version of knapsack, I can just implement a knapsack solution, as I probably have small enough lists to get away with this, but I'd prefer to do something more efficient.
First of all in any sum, you won't have produced a worse result by adding the largest element last. So there is no harm in assuming that the elements are sorted from smallest to largest as a first step.
And now you use a dynamic programming approach similar to the usual subset sum.
def best_cutoff_sum (cutoff, elements):
elements = sorted(elements)
sums = {0: None}
for e in elements:
next_sums = {}
for v, path in sums.iteritems():
next_sums[v] = path
if v < cutoff:
next_sums[v + e] = [e, path]
sums = next_sums
best = max(sums.keys())
return (best, sums[best])
print(best_cutoff_sum(15, [6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1]))
With a little work you can turn the path from the nested array it currently is to whatever format you want.
If your list of non-negative elements has n elements, your cutoff is c and your maximum value is v, then this algorithm will take time O(n * (k + v))
ranking an element x in an array/list is just to find out how many elements in the array/list that strictly smaller than x.
So ranking a list is just get ranks of all elements in the list.
For example, rank [51, 38, 29, 51, 63, 38] = [3, 1, 0, 3, 5, 1], i.e., there are 3 elements smaller than 51, etc.
Ranking a list can be done in O(NlogN). Basically, we can sort the list while remembering the original index of each element, and then see for each element, how many before it.
The question here is How to rank the suffixes of a list, in O(NlogN)?
Ranking the suffixes of a list means:
for list [3; 1; 2], rank [[3;1;2]; [1;2]; [2]]
note that elements may not be distinct.
edit
We don't need to print out all elements for all suffixes. You can image that we just need to print out a list/array, where each element is a rank of a suffix.
For example, rank suffix_of_[3;1;2] = rank [[3;1;2]; [1;2]; [2]] = [2;0;1] and you just print out [2;0;1].
edit 2
Let me explain what is all suffixes and what means sorting/ranking all suffixes more clearly here.
Suppose we have an array/list [e1;e2;e3;e4;e5].
Then all suffixes of [e1;e2;e3;e4;e5] are:
[e1;e2;e3;e4;e5]
[e2;e3;e4;e5]
[e3;e4;e5]
[e4;e5]
[e5]
for example, all suffixes of [4;2;3;1;0] are
[4;2;3;1;0]
[2;3;1;0]
[3;1;0]
[1;0]
[0]
Sorting above 5 suffixes implies lexicographic sort. sorting above all suffixes, you get
[0]
[1;0]
[2;3;1;0]
[3;1;0]
[4;2;3;1;0]
by the way, if you can't image how 5 lists/arrays can be sorted among them, just think of sorting strings in lexicographic order.
"0" < "10" < "2310" < "310" < "42310"
It seems sorting all suffixes is actually sorting all elements of the original array.
However, please be careful that all elements may not be distinct, for example
for [4;2;2;1;0], all suffixes are:
[4;2;2;1;0]
[2;2;1;0]
[2;1;0]
[1;0]
[0]
then the order is
[0]
[1;0]
[2;1;0]
[2;2;1;0]
[4;2;2;1;0]
As MBo noted correctly, your problem is that of constructing the suffix array of your input list. The fast and complicated algorithms to do this are actually linear time, but since you only aim for O(n log n), I will try to propose a simpler version that is much easier to implement.
Basic idea and an initial O(n log² n) implementation
Let's take the sequence [4, 2, 2, 1] as an example. Its suffixes are
0: 4 2 2 1
1: 2 2 1
2: 2 1
3: 1
I numbered the suffixes with their starting index in the original sequence. Ultimately we want to sort this set of suffixes lexicographically, and fast. We know we can represent each suffix using its starting index in constant space and we can sort in O(n log n) comparisons using merge sort, heap sort or a similar algorithm. So the question remains, how can we compare two suffixes fast?
Let's say we want to compare the suffixes [2, 2, 1] and [2, 1]. We can pad those with negative infinity values changing the result of the comparison: [2, 2, 1, -∞] and [2, 1, -∞, -∞].
Now the key idea here is the following divide-and-conquer observation: Instead of comparing the sequences character by character until we find a position where the two differ, we can instead split both lists in half and compare the halves lexicographically:
[a, b, c, d] < [e, f, g, h]
<=> ([a, b], [c, d]) < ([e, f], [g, h])
<=> [a, b] < [e, f] or ([a, b,] = [e, f] and [c, d] < [g, h])
Essentially we have decomposed the problem of comparing the sequences into two problems of comparing smaller sequences. This leads to the following algorithm:
Step 1: Sort the substrings (contiguous subsequences) of length 1. In our example, the substrings of length 1 are [4], [2], [2], [1]. Every substring can be represented by the starting position in the original list. We sort them by a simple comparison sort and get [1], [2], [2], [4]. We store the result by assigning to every position it's rank in the sorted lists of lists:
position substring rank
0 [4] 2
1 [2] 1
2 [2] 1
3 [1] 0
It is important that we assign the same rank to equal substrings!
Step 2: Now we want to sort the substrings of length 2. The are only really 3 such substrings, but we assign one to every position by padding with negative infinity if necessary. The trick here is that we can use our divide-and-conquer idea from above and the ranks assigned in step 1 to do a fast comparison (this isn't really necessary yet but will become important later).
position substring halves ranks from step 1 final rank
0 [4, 2] ([4], [2]) (2, 1) 3
1 [2, 2] ([2], [2]) (1, 1) 2
2 [2, 1] ([2], [2]) (1, 0) 1
3 [1, -∞] ([1], [-∞]) (0, -∞) 0
Step 3: You guessed it, now we sort substrings of length 4 (!). These are exactly the suffixes of the list! We can use the divide-and-conquer trick and the results from step 2 this time:
position substring halves ranks from step 2 final rank
0 [4, 2, 2, 1] ([4, 2], [2, 1]) (3, 1) 3
1 [2, 2, 1, -∞] ([2, 2], [1, -∞]) (2, 0) 2
2 [2, 1, -∞, -∞] ([2, 1], [-∞,-∞]) (1, -∞) 1
3 [1, -∞, -∞, -∞] ([1,-∞], [-∞,-∞]) (0, -∞) 0
We're done! If our initial sequence would have had size 2^k, we would have needed k steps. Or put the other way round, we need log_2 n steps to process a sequence of size n. If its length is not a power of two, we just pad with negative infinity.
For an actual implementation we just need to remember the sequence "final rank" for every step of the algorithm.
An implementation in C++ could look like this (compile with -std=c++11):
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int seq[] = {8, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 1};
const int n = 7;
const int log2n = 3; // log2n = ceil(log_2(n))
int Rank[log2n + 1][n]; // Rank[i] will save the final Ranks of step i
tuple<int, int, int> L[n]; // L is a list of tuples. in step i,
// this will hold pairs of Ranks from step i - 1
// along with the substring index
const int neginf = -1; // should be smaller than all the numbers in seq
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
Rank[1][i] = seq[i]; // step 1 is actually simple if you think about it
for (int step = 2; step <= log2n; ++step) {
int length = 1 << (step - 1); // length is 2^(step - 1)
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
L[i] = make_tuple(
Rank[step - 1][i],
(i + length / 2 < n) ? Rank[step - 1][i + length / 2] : neginf,
i); // we need to know where the tuple came from later
sort(L, L + n); // lexicographical sort
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
// we save the rank of the index, but we need to be careful to
// assign equal ranks to equal pairs
Rank[step][get<2>(L[i])] = (i > 0 && get<0>(L[i]) == get<0>(L[i - 1])
&& get<1>(L[i]) == get<1>(L[i - 1]))
? Rank[step][get<2>(L[i - 1])]
: i;
}
}
// the suffix array is in L after the last step
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
int start = get<2>(L[i]);
cout << start << ":";
for (int j = start; j < n; ++j)
cout << " " << seq[j];
cout << endl;
}
}
Output:
6: 1
5: 2 1
4: 2 2 1
2: 2 4 2 2 1
1: 3 2 4 2 2 1
3: 4 2 2 1
0: 8 3 2 4 2 2 1
The complexity is O(log n * (n + sort)), which is O(n log² n) in this implementation because we use a comparison sort of complexity O(n log n)
A simple O(n log n) algorithm
If we manage to do the sorting parts in O(n) per step, we get a O(n log n) bound. So basically we have to sort a sequence of pairs (x, y), where 0 <= x, y < n. We know that we can sort a sequence of integers in the given range in O(n) time using counting sort. We can intepret our pairs (x, y) as numbers z = n * x + y in base n. We can now see how to use LSD radix sort to sort the pairs.
In practice, this means we sort the pairs by increasing y using counting sort, and then use counting sort again to sort by increasing x. Since counting sort is stable, this gives us the lexicographical order of our pairs in 2 * O(n) = O(n). The final complexity is thus O(n log n).
In case you are interested, you can find an O(n log² n) implementation of the approach at my Github repo. The implementation has 27 lines of code. Neat, ain't it?
This is exactly suffix array construction problem, and wiki page contains links to the linear-complexity algorithms (probably, depending on alphabet)
The problem is extended from Finding a single number in a list
If I extend the problem to this:
What would be the best algorithm for finding a number that occurs only once in a list which has all other numbers occurring exactly k times?
Does anyone have good answer?
for example, A = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3 }, in this case, k = 3. How can I get the single number "4" in O(n) time and the space complexity is O(1)?
If every element in the array is less n and greater than 0.
Let the array be a, traverse the array for each a[i] add n to a[(a[i])%(n)].
Now traverse the array again, the position at which a[i] is less than 2*n and greater than n (assuming 1 based index) is the answer.
This method won't work if at least on element is greater than n. In that case you have to use method suggested by Jayram
EDIT:
To retrieve the array just apply mod n to every element in the array
This can be solved in given with your constraints if the numbers other than lonely number are occurring exactly in even count (i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8...) by doing the XOR operation on all the numbers.
But other than this in space complexity O(1) its just teasing me.
If other than your given constraints you could use these approaches to solve this.
Sort the numbers and have a current variable to get the count of current number. If it is greater than 1 then go to next number and so on. Space O(1)...Time O(nlogn)
Use O(n) extra memory to count the occurrences of each number. Time O(n)...Space O(n)
I Just want to extend #banarun answer .
Take the input as map . Like a[0]=1; Then take it as myMap with 0 as index and 1 as value .
And while reading the input find the maximum number M . Then find A prime greater than M as P.
No iterate through the map and for every key i of myMap add P to myMap(myMap(i)%P) if myMap(myMap(i)%P) is not initiated set it to P. Now iterate through the myMap again, the position at which myMap[i] is >=P And < 2*P is your answer. Basically the the Idea is to remove overflow and overwrite problem from the banarun suggested Algo .
Here is an mechanism which may not be as good as the others but which is instructive and gets to the core of why the XOR answer is as good as it is when k = 2.
1. Represent each number in base k. Support there are at most r digits in the representation
2. Add each of the numbers in the right-most ('r'th) digit mod k, then 'r - 1'st digit (mod k) and so on
3. The final representation of r digits that you have is the answer.
For example, if the array is
A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 4, 4}
Representation in mod 3 is
A = {01, 02, 10, 11, 02, 10, 01, 02, 01, 10, 12, 11, 11}
r = 2
Sum of 'r'th place = 2
Sum of the 'r-1'th place = 1
Hence answer = {12} in base 3 which is 5.
This is an answer which will be O(n * r). Note that r is proportional to log n.
Why is the XOR answer in O(n) ? Because the processor provides an XOR operation which is performed in O(1) time rather than the O(r) factor that we have above.
According to banarun solution(with small fix's):
Algorithm conditions:
for each i arr[i]<N (size of array)
for each i arr[i]>=0 (positive)
The Algorithm:
int[] arr = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3 };
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
arr[(arr[i])%(arr.Length)] += arr.Length;
if(arr[i] < arr.Length)
arr[i] = -1;
}
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
if (arr[i] - 3 * arr.Length <0 && arr[i]!=-1)
Console.WriteLine("single number = "+i);
}
This solution is with Time complexity of O(N) And Space complexity of O(1)
Note:
Again this algorithm can work only if all number are positives and all numbers are less then N.
Here is the problem, an unsorted array a[n], and I need to find the kth smallest number in range [i, j], and absolutely 1<=i<=j<=n, k<=j-i+1.
Typically I will use quick-find to do the job, but it is not fast enough if there many query requests with different range [i, j], I hardly to figure out a algorithm to do the query in O(logn) time (preprocessing is allowed).
Any idea is appreciated.
PS
Let me make the problem easier to understand. Any kinds of preprocessing is allowed, but the query needs to be done in O(logn) time. And there will be many (more than 1) queries, like find the 1st in range [3,7], or 3rd in range [10,17], or 11th in range [33, 52].
By range [i, j] I mean in the original array, not sorted or something.
For example, a[5] = {3,1,7,5,9}, query 1st in range [3,4] is 5, 2nd in range [1,3] is 5, 3rd in range [0,2] is 7.
If pre-processing is allowed and not counted towards the time complexity, just use that to construct sub-lists so that you can efficiently find the element you're looking for. As with most optimisations, this trades space for time.
Your pre-processing step is to take your original list of n numbers and create a number of new sublists.
Each of these sublists is a portion of the original, starting with the nth element, extending for m elements and then sorted. So your original list of:
{3, 1, 7, 5, 9}
gives you:
list[0][0] = {3}
list[0][1] = {1, 3}
list[0][2] = {1, 3, 7}
list[0][3] = {1, 3, 5, 7}
list[0][4] = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9}
list[1][0] = {1}
list[1][1] = {1, 7}
list[1][2] = {1, 5, 7}
list[1][3] = {1, 5, 7, 9}
list[2][0] = {7}
list[2][1] = {5, 7}
list[2][2] = {5, 7, 9}
list[3][0] = {5}
list[3][1] = {5,9}
list[4][0] = {9}
This isn't a cheap operation (in time or space) so you may want to maintain a "dirty" flag on the list so you only perform it the first time after you do an modifying operation (insert, delete, change).
In fact, you can use lazy evaluation for even more efficiency. Basically set all sublists to an empty list when you start and whenever you perform a modifying operation. Then, whenever you attempt to access a sublist and it's empty, calculate that sublist (and that one only) before trying to get the kth value out of it.
That ensures sublists are evaluated only when needed and cached to prevent unnecessary recalculation. For example, if you never ask for a value from the 3-through-6 sublist, it's never calculated.
The pseudo-code for creating all the sublists is basically (for loops inclusive at both ends):
for n = 0 to a.lastindex:
create array list[n]
for m = 0 to a.lastindex - n
create array list[n][m]
for i = 0 to m:
list[n][m][i] = a[n+i]
sort list[n][m]
The code for lazy evaluation is a little more complex (but only a little), so I won't provide pseudo-code for that.
Then, in order to find the kth smallest number in the range i through j (where i and j are the original indexes), you simply look up lists[i][j-i][k-1], a very fast O(1) operation:
+--------------------------+
| |
| v
1st in range [3,4] (values 5,9), list[3][4-3=1][1-1-0] = 5
2nd in range [1,3] (values 1,7,5), list[1][3-1=2][2-1=1] = 5
3rd in range [0,2] (values 3,1,7), list[0][2-0=2][3-1=2] = 7
| | ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
| +-------------------------+----+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
Here's some Python code which shows this in action:
orig = [3,1,7,5,9]
print orig
print "====="
list = []
for n in range (len(orig)):
list.append([])
for m in range (len(orig) - n):
list[-1].append([])
for i in range (m+1):
list[-1][-1].append(orig[n+i])
list[-1][-1] = sorted(list[-1][-1])
print "(%d,%d)=%s"%(n,m,list[-1][-1])
print "====="
# Gives xth smallest in index range y through z inclusive.
x = 1; y = 3; z = 4; print "(%d,%d,%d)=%d"%(x,y,z,list[y][z-y][x-1])
x = 2; y = 1; z = 3; print "(%d,%d,%d)=%d"%(x,y,z,list[y][z-y][x-1])
x = 3; y = 0; z = 2; print "(%d,%d,%d)=%d"%(x,y,z,list[y][z-y][x-1])
print "====="
As expected, the output is:
[3, 1, 7, 5, 9]
=====
(0,0)=[3]
(0,1)=[1, 3]
(0,2)=[1, 3, 7]
(0,3)=[1, 3, 5, 7]
(0,4)=[1, 3, 5, 7, 9]
(1,0)=[1]
(1,1)=[1, 7]
(1,2)=[1, 5, 7]
(1,3)=[1, 5, 7, 9]
(2,0)=[7]
(2,1)=[5, 7]
(2,2)=[5, 7, 9]
(3,0)=[5]
(3,1)=[5, 9]
(4,0)=[9]
=====
(1,3,4)=5
(2,1,3)=5
(3,0,2)=7
=====
Current solution is O( (logn)^2 ). I am pretty sure it can be modified to run on O(logn). The main advantage of this algorithm over paxdiablo's algorithm is space efficiency. This algorithm needs O(nlogn) space, not O(n^2) space.
First, the complexity of finding kth smallest element from two sorted arrays of length m and n is O(logm + logn). Complexity of finding kth smallest element from arrays of lengths a,b,c,d.. is O(loga+logb+.....).
Now, sort the whole array and store it. Sort the first half and second half of the array and store it and so on. You will have 1 sorted array of length n, 2 sorted of arrays of length n/2, 4 sorted arrays of length n/4 and so on. Total memory required = 1*n+2*n/2+4*n/4+8*n/8...= nlogn.
Once you have i and j figure out the list of of subarrays which, when concatenated, give you range [i,j]. There are going to be logn number of arrays. Finding kth smallest number among them would take O( (logn)^2) time.
Example for the last paragraph:
Assume the array is of size 8 (indexed from 0 to 7). You have the following sorted lists:
A:0-7, B:0-3, C:4-7, D:0-1, E:2-3, F:4-5, G:6-7.
Now construct a tree with pointers to these arrays such that every node contains its immediate constituents. A will be root, B and C are its children and so on.
Now implement a recursive function that returns a list of arrays.
def getArrays(node, i, j):
if i==node.min and j==node.max:
return [node];
if i<=node.left.max:
if j<=node.left.max:
return [getArrays(node.left, i, j)]; # (i,j) is located within left node
else:
return [ getArrays(node.left, i, node.left.max), getArrays(node.right, node.right.min, j) ]; # (i,j) is spread over left and right node
else:
return [getArrays(node.right, i, j)]; # (i,j) is located within right node
Preprocess: Make an nxn array where the [k][r] element is the kth smallest element of the first r elements (1-indexed for convenience).
Then, given some particular range [i,j] and value for k, do the following:
Find the element at the [k][j] slot of the matrix; call this x.
go down the i-1 column of your matrix and find how many values in it are smaller than or equal to x (treat column 0 as having 0 smaller entries). By construction, this column will be sorted (all columns will be sorted), so it can be found in log time. Call this value s
Find the element in the [k+s][j] slot of the matrix. This is your answer.
E.g., given 3 1 7 5 9
3 1 1 1 1
X 3 3 3 3
X X 7 5 5
X X X 7 7
X X X X 9
Now, if we're asked for the 2nd smallest in [2,4] range (again, 1-indexing), I first find the 2nd smallest in [1,4] range which is 3. I then look at column 1 and see that there is 1 element less than or equal to 3. Finally, I find the 3rd smallest in [1,4] range at [3][5] slot which is 5, as desired.
This takes n^2 space, and log(n) lookup time.
This one does not require pre-process but is somehow slower than O(logN). It's significantly faster than a naive iterate&count, and could support dynamic modification on the sequence.
It goes like this. Suppose the length n has n=2^x for some x. Construct a segment-tree whose root node represent [0,n-1]. For each of the node, if it represent a node [a,b], b>a, let it has two child nodes each representing [a,(a+b)/2], [(a+b)/2+1,b]. (That is, do a recursive divide-by-two).
Then, on each node, maintain a separate binary search tree for the numbers within that segment. Therefore, each modification on the sequence takes O(logN)[on the segement]*O(logN)[on the BST]. Queries can be done like this, Let Q(a,b,x) be rank of x within segment [a,b]. Obviously, if Q(a,b,x) can be computed efficiently, a binary search on x can compute the answer desired effectively (with an extra O(logE) factor.
Q(a,b,x) can be computed as: find smallest number of segments that make up [a,b], which can be done in O(logN) on the segment tree. For each segment, query on the binary search tree for that segment for the number of elements less than x. Add all these numbers to get Q(a,b,x).
This should be O(logN*logE*logN). Well not exactly what you have asked for though.
In O(log n) time it's not possible to read all of the elements of the array. Since it's not sorted, and there's no other provided information, this is impossible.
There's no way you can do better than O(n) in both worst and average case. You have to look at every single element.