Given an unsorted array
A = a_1 ... a_n
And a set of sorted Arrays
B_i = b_i_1 ... b_i_n # for i from 1 to $large_number
I would like to find the maximums from the (not yet calculated) sum arrays
C_i = (a_1 + b_i_1) ... (a_n + b_i_n)
for each i.
Is there a trick to do better than just calculating all the C_i and finding their maximums in O($large_number * n)?
Can we do better when we know that the B arrays are just shifts from an endless sequence,
e.g.
S = 0 1 4 9 16 ...
B_i = S[i:i+n]
(The above sequence has the maybe advantageous property that (S_i - S_i-1 > S_i-1 - S_i-2))
There are $large_number * n data in your first problem, so there can't be any such trick.
You can prove this with an adversary argument. Suppose you have an algorithm that solves your problem without looking at all n * $large_number entries of b. I'm going to pick a fixed a, namely (-10, -20, -30, ..., -10n). The first $large_number * n - 1 the algorithm looks at an entry b_(i,j), I'll answer that it's 10j, for a sum of zero. The last time it looks at an entry, I'll answer that it's 10j+1, for a sum of 1.
If $large_number is Omega(n), your second problem requires you to look at n * $large_number entries of S, so it also can't have any such trick.
However, if you specify S, there may be something. And if $large_number <= n/2 (or whatever it is), then, all of the entries of S must be sorted, so you only have to look at the last B.
If we don't know anything I don't it's possible to do better than O($large_number * n)
However - If it's just shifts of an endless sequence we can do it in O($large_number + n):
We calculate B_0 ןמ O($large_number).
Than B_1 = (B_0 - S[0]) + S[n+1]
And in general: B_i = (B_i-1 - S[i-1]) + S[i-1+n].
So we can calculate all the other entries and the max in O(n).
This is for a general sequence - if we have some info about it, it might be possible to do better.
we know that the B arrays are just shifts from an endless sequence,
e.g.
S = 0 1 4 9 16 ...
B_i = S[i:i+n]
You can easily calculate S[i:i+n] as (sum of squares from 1 to i+n) - (sum of squares from 1 to i-1)
See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/183316/how-to-get-to-the-formula-for-the-sum-of-squares-of-first-n-numbers
With the provided example, S1 = 0, S2 = 1, S3 = 4...
Let f(n) = SUM of Si for i=1 to n = (n-1)(n)(2n-1)/6
B_i = f(i+n) - f(i-1)
You then add SUM(A) to each sum.
Another approach is to calculate the difference between B_i and B_(i-1):
That would be: S[i:i+n] - S[i-1:i+n-1] = S(i+n) - S(i-1)
That way, you can just calculate the difference of the sums of each array with the previous one. In my understanding, since Ci = SUM(Bi)+SUM(A), SUM(A) becomes a constant that is irrelevant in finding the maximum.
Related
I would like to generate a sequence of n random integers in the interval [1,n] without duplicates, i.e. a permutation of the sequence [1,2,...,n] with O(log(n)) space complexity (or a polynomial function of log(n)).
One hint is that I can assume that I have a family of l-wise uniform hash functions h : [n] -> [k] (with l<=n) such that for any y_1, y_2,..., y_l and any distinct x_1, x_2,..., x_l :
P(h(x_1) = y_1 and h(x_2) = y_2 and ... and h(x_l) = y_l) = 1/(k^l)
My first idea was to use the hash function to generate the i-th element of the sequence, i.e. x_i = h(i) , check if x_i is already used (has already been returned by the hash function for some 0<j<i) and if it's the case increment x_i by 1 and check again until x_i is a new number. My problem is I can not have a vector of booleans of size n to check if the value x_i is already used. And if I do a recursive function to get the j-th value I will need at some point O(n log2(n)) bits...
I also found here that pseudorandom generator like Linear congruential generator can be used for this kind of problem with something like x_i+1 = (a*x_i + c)%n + 1 but I am not sure to understand how to choose a for any value of n to have a period of length n. In that case the hint is not really useful except for generating the first number of the sequence thus I don't think it's the right way.
Here's a fun super simple solution with constant space; when N is a power of 2 and your definition of "random" is incredibly loose (the resulting sequence will alternate between even and odd numbers).
N = power of 2
P = prime number larger than N.
S = random starting number between 0 and N-1
For i = 1 TO N
// add our prime to the starting random number
S += P
// S Modulus N
// Bitwise And N-1 works because N is a pow of 2
T = S & (N - 1)
//T is [0, (N-1)] => we want [1, N]
PRINT (T + 1)
Next I
JS
for(let N = 64, P = 73, S = N * Math.random(), i = 1; i <= N; i++) { S += P; console.log((S & (N - 1)) + 1); }
Another answer would probably be to consider all of the numbers [1, N] as leaf nodes in a tree and your Log(N) space is the size of a the path through the tree. Your solution would be a function that permutes all N paths through the tree. The way you permute the paths in a pseudo random way would basically be a Linear Feedback Shift Register type generator that has a period grater than N.
https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/design/technical-documents/app-notes/4/4400.html
You are given N total number of item, P group in which you have to divide the N items.
Condition is the product of number of item held by each group should be max.
example N=10 and P=3 you can divide the 10 item in {3,4,3} since 3x3x4=36 max possible product.
You will want to form P groups of roughly N / P elements. However, this will not always be possible, as N might not be divisible by P, as is the case for your example.
So form groups of floor(N / P) elements initially. For your example, you'd form:
floor(10 / 3) = 3
=> groups = {3, 3, 3}
Now, take the remainder of the division of N by P:
10 mod 3 = 1
This means you have to distribute 1 more item to your groups (you can have up to P - 1 items left to distribute in general):
for i = 0 up to (N mod P) - 1:
groups[i]++
=> groups = {4, 3, 3} for your example
Which is also a valid solution.
For fun I worked out a proof of the fact that it in an optimal solution either all numbers = N/P or the numbers are some combination of floor(N/P) and ceiling(N/P). The proof is somewhat long, but proving optimality in a discrete context is seldom trivial. I would be interested if anybody can shorten the proof.
Lemma: For P = 2 the optimal way to divide N is into {N/2, N/2} if N is even and {floor(N/2), ceiling(N/2)} if N is odd.
This follows since the constraint that the two numbers sum to N means that the two numbers are of the form x, N-x.
The resulting product is (N-x)x = Nx - x^2. This is a parabola that opens down. Its max is at its vertex at x = N/2. If N is even this max is an integer. If N is odd, then x = N/2 is a fraction, but such parabolas are strictly unimodal, so the closer x gets to N/2 the larger the product. x = floor(N/2) (or ceiling, it doesn't matter by symmetry) is the closest an integer can get to N/2, hence {floor(N/2),ceiling(N/2)} is optimal for integers.
General case: First of all, a global max exists since there are only finitely many integer partitions and a finite list of numbers always has a max. Suppose that {x_1, x_2, ..., x_P} is globally optimal. Claim: given and i,j we have
|x_i - x_ j| <= 1
In other words: any two numbers in an optimal solution differ by at most 1. This follows immediately from the P = 2 lemma (applied to N = x_i + x_ j).
From this claim it follows that there are at most two distinct numbers among the x_i. If there is only 1 number, that number is clearly N/P. If there are two numbers, they are of the form a and a+1. Let k = the number of x_i which equal a+1, hence P-k of the x_i = a. Hence
(P-k)a + k(a+1) = N, where k is an integer with 1 <= k < P
But simple algebra yields that a = (N-k)/P = N/P - k/P.
Hence -- a is an integer < N/P which differs from N/P by less than 1 (k/P < 1)
Thus a = floor(N/P) and a+1 = ceiling(N/P).
QED
You are given N and an int K[].
The task at hand is to generate a equal probabilistic random number between 0 to N-1 which doesn't exist in K.
N is strictly a integer >= 0.
And K.length is < N-1. And 0 <= K[i] <= N-1. Also assume K is sorted and each element of K is unique.
You are given a function uniformRand(int M) which generates uniform random number in the range 0 to M-1 And assume this functions's complexity is O(1).
Example:
N = 7
K = {0, 1, 5}
the function should return any random number { 2, 3, 4, 6 } with equal
probability.
I could get a O(N) solution for this : First generate a random number between 0 to N - K.length. And map the thus generated random number to a number not in K. The second step will take the complexity to O(N). Can it be done better in may be O(log N) ?
You can use the fact that all the numbers in K[] are between 0 and N-1 and they are distinct.
For your example case, you generate a random number from 0 to 3. Say you get a random number r. Now you conduct binary search on the array K[].
Initialize i = K.length/2.
Find K[i] - i. This will give you the number of numbers missing from the array in the range 0 to i.
For example K[2] = 5. So 3 elements are missing from K[0] to K[2] (2,3,4)
Hence you can decide whether you have to conduct the remaining search in the first part of array K or the next part. This is because you know r.
This search will give you a complexity of log(K.length)
EDIT: For example,
N = 7
K = {0, 1, 4} // modified the array to clarify the algorithm steps.
the function should return any random number { 2, 3, 5, 6 } with equal probability.
Random number generated between 0 and N-K.length = random{0-3}. Say we get 3. Hence we require the 4th missing number in array K.
Conduct binary search on array K[].
Initial i = K.length/2 = 1.
Now we see K[1] - 1 = 0. Hence no number is missing upto i = 1. Hence we search on the latter part of the array.
Now i = 2. K[2] - 2 = 4 - 2 = 2. Hence there are 2 missing numbers up to index i = 2. But we need the 4th missing element. So we again have to search in the latter part of the array.
Now we reach an empty array. What should we do now? If we reach an empty array between say K[j] & K[j+1] then it simply means that all elements between K[j] and K[j+1] are missing from the array K.
Hence all elements above K[2] are missing from the array, namely 5 and 6. We need the 4th element out of which we have already discarded 2 elements. Hence we will choose the second element which is 6.
Binary search.
The basic algorithm:
(not quite the same as the other answer - the number is only generated at the end)
Start in the middle of K.
By looking at the current value and it's index, we can determine the number of pickable numbers (numbers not in K) to the left.
Similarly, by including N, we can determine the number of pickable numbers to the right.
Now randomly go either left or right, weighted based on the count of pickable numbers on each side.
Repeat in the chosen subarray until the subarray is empty.
Then generate a random number in the range consisting of the numbers before and after the subarray in the array.
The running time would be O(log |K|), and, since |K| < N-1, O(log N).
The exact mathematics for number counts and weights can be derived from the example below.
Extension with K containing a bigger range:
Now let's say (for enrichment purposes) K can also contain values N or larger.
Then, instead of starting with the entire K, we start with a subarray up to position min(N, |K|), and start in the middle of that.
It's easy to see that the N-th position in K (if one exists) will be >= N, so this chosen range includes any possible number we can generate.
From here, we need to do a binary search for N (which would give us a point where all values to the left are < N, even if N could not be found) (the above algorithm doesn't deal with K containing values greater than N).
Then we just run the algorithm as above with the subarray ending at the last value < N.
The running time would be O(log N), or, more specifically, O(log min(N, |K|)).
Example:
N = 10
K = {0, 1, 4, 5, 8}
So we start in the middle - 4.
Given that we're at index 2, we know there are 2 elements to the left, and the value is 4, so there are 4 - 2 = 2 pickable values to the left.
Similarly, there are 10 - (4+1) - 2 = 3 pickable values to the right.
So now we go left with probability 2/(2+3) and right with probability 3/(2+3).
Let's say we went right, and our next middle value is 5.
We are at the first position in this subarray, and the previous value is 4, so we have 5 - (4+1) = 0 pickable values to the left.
And there are 10 - (5+1) - 1 = 3 pickable values to the right.
We can't go left (0 probability). If we go right, our next middle value would be 8.
There would be 2 pickable values to the left, and 1 to the right.
If we go left, we'd have an empty subarray.
So then we'd generate a number between 5 and 8, which would be 6 or 7 with equal probability.
This can be solved by basically solving this:
Find the rth smallest number not in the given array, K, subject to
conditions in the question.
For that consider the implicit array D, defined by
D[i] = K[i] - i for 0 <= i < L, where L is length of K
We also set D[-1] = 0 and D[L] = N
We also define K[-1] = 0.
Note, we don't actually need to construct D. Also note that D is sorted (and all elements non-negative), as the numbers in K[] are unique and increasing.
Now we make the following claim:
CLAIM: To find the rth smallest number not in K[], we need to find right most occurrence of r' in D (which occurs at position defined by j), where r' is the largest number in D, which is < r. Such an r' exists, because D[-1] = 0. Once we find such an r' (and j), the number we are looking for is r-r' + K[j].
Proof: Basically the definition of r' and j tells us that there are exactlyr' numbers missing from 0 to K[j], and more than r numbers missing from 0 to K[j+1]. Thus all the numbers from K[j]+1 to K[j+1]-1 are missing (and these missing are at least r-r' in number), and the number we seek is among them, given by K[j] + r-r'.
Algorithm:
In order to find (r',j) all we need to do is a (modified) binary search for r in D, where we keep moving to the left even if we find r in the array.
This is an O(log K) algorithm.
If you are running this many times, it probably pays to speed up your generation operation: O(log N) time just isn't acceptable.
Make an empty array G. Starting at zero, count upwards while progressing through the values of K. If a value isn't in K add it to G. If it is in K don't add it and progress your K pointer. (This relies on K being sorted.)
Now you have an array G which has only acceptable numbers.
Use your random number generator to choose a value from G.
This requires O(N) preparatory work and each generation happens in O(1) time. After N look-ups the amortized time of all operations is O(1).
A Python mock-up:
import random
class PRNG:
def __init__(self, K,N):
self.G = []
kptr = 0
for i in range(N):
if kptr<len(K) and K[kptr]==i:
kptr+=1
else:
self.G.append(i)
def getRand(self):
rn = random.randint(0,len(self.G)-1)
return self.G[rn]
prng=PRNG( [0,1,5], 7)
for i in range(20):
print prng.getRand()
Given a set S of positive integers whose elements need not to be distinct i need to find minimal non-negative sum that cant be obtained from any subset of the given set.
Example : if S = {1, 1, 3, 7}, we can get 0 as (S' = {}), 1 as (S' = {1}), 2 as (S' = {1, 1}), 3 as (S' = {3}), 4 as (S' = {1, 3}), 5 as (S' = {1, 1, 3}), but we can't get 6.
Now we are given one array A, consisting of N positive integers. Their are M queries,each consist of two integers Li and Ri describe i'th query: we need to find this Sum that cant be obtained from array elements ={A[Li], A[Li+1], ..., A[Ri-1], A[Ri]} .
I know to find it by a brute force approach to be done in O(2^n). But given 1 ≤ N, M ≤ 100,000.This cant be done .
So is their any effective approach to do it.
Concept
Suppose we had an array of bool representing which numbers so far haven't been found (by way of summing).
For each number n we encounter in the ordered (increasing values) subset of S, we do the following:
For each existing True value at position i in numbers, we set numbers[i + n] to True
We set numbers[n] to True
With this sort of a sieve, we would mark all the found numbers as True, and iterating through the array when the algorithm finishes would find us the minimum unobtainable sum.
Refinement
Obviously, we can't have a solution like this because the array would have to be infinite in order to work for all sets of numbers.
The concept could be improved by making a few observations. With an input of 1, 1, 3, the array becomes (in sequence):
(numbers represent true values)
An important observation can be made:
(3) For each next number, if the previous numbers had already been found it will be added to all those numbers. This implies that if there were no gaps before a number, there will be no gaps after that number has been processed.
For the next input of 7 we can assert that:
(4) Since the input set is ordered, there will be no number less than 7
(5) If there is no number less than 7, then 6 cannot be obtained
We can come to a conclusion that:
(6) the first gap represents the minimum unobtainable number.
Algorithm
Because of (3) and (6), we don't actually need the numbers array, we only need a single value, max to represent the maximum number found so far.
This way, if the next number n is greater than max + 1, then a gap would have been made, and max + 1 is the minimum unobtainable number.
Otherwise, max becomes max + n. If we've run through the entire S, the result is max + 1.
Actual code (C#, easily converted to C):
static int Calculate(int[] S)
{
int max = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < S.Length; i++)
{
if (S[i] <= max + 1)
max = max + S[i];
else
return max + 1;
}
return max + 1;
}
Should run pretty fast, since it's obviously linear time (O(n)). Since the input to the function should be sorted, with quicksort this would become O(nlogn). I've managed to get results M = N = 100000 on 8 cores in just under 5 minutes.
With numbers upper limit of 10^9, a radix sort could be used to approximate O(n) time for the sorting, however this would still be way over 2 seconds because of the sheer amount of sorts required.
But, we can use statistical probability of 1 being randomed to eliminate subsets before sorting. On the start, check if 1 exists in S, if not then every query's result is 1 because it cannot be obtained.
Statistically, if we random from 10^9 numbers 10^5 times, we have 99.9% chance of not getting a single 1.
Before each sort, check if that subset contains 1, if not then its result is one.
With this modification, the code runs in 2 miliseconds on my machine. Here's that code on http://pastebin.com/rF6VddTx
This is a variation of the subset-sum problem, which is NP-Complete, but there is a pseudo-polynomial Dynamic Programming solution you can adopt here, based on the recursive formula:
f(S,i) = f(S-arr[i],i-1) OR f(S,i-1)
f(-n,i) = false
f(_,-n) = false
f(0,i) = true
The recursive formula is basically an exhaustive search, each sum can be achieved if you can get it with element i OR without element i.
The dynamic programming is achieved by building a SUM+1 x n+1 table (where SUM is the sum of all elements, and n is the number of elements), and building it bottom-up.
Something like:
table <- SUM+1 x n+1 table
//init:
for each i from 0 to SUM+1:
table[0][i] = true
for each j from 1 to n:
table[j][0] = false
//fill the table:
for each i from 1 to SUM+1:
for each j from 1 to n+1:
if i < arr[j]:
table[i][j] = table[i][j-1]
else:
table[i][j] = table[i-arr[j]][j-1] OR table[i][j-1]
Once you have the table, you need the smallest i such that for all j: table[i][j] = false
Complexity of solution is O(n*SUM), where SUM is the sum of all elements, but note that the algorithm can actually be trimmed after the required number was found, without the need to go on for the next rows, which are un-needed for the solution.
There are two integer sequences A[] and B[] of length N,both unsorted.
Requirement: through the swapping of elements between A[] and B[]( can randomly exchange, not with same index), make the difference between {the sum of all elements in A[]} and {the sum of all elements in B[]} to be minimum.
PS: actually,it is an interview question I encountered.
Many thanks
This is going to be NP-hard! I believe you can do a reduction from Subset Sum to this.
As per BlueRaja/polygene's comments, I will try to provide a full reduction from Subset Sum.
Here is a reduction:
Subset Sum problem: Given integers x1, x2, ..., xn, is there some non-empty subset which sums to zero?
Our problem: Given two integer arrays of size k, find the minimum possible difference of the sum of the two arrays, assuming we can shuffle around the integers in the arrays, treating both arrays as one array.
Say we had a polynomial time algo for our problem.
Say now you are given integers T = {x1,x2, ...,xn} (multiset)
Let Si = x1 + x2 + ...+ xn + xi.
Let Ti = {x1, x2, ..., xi-1, xi+1, ..., xn } ( = T - xi)
Define
Ai = Array formed using Ti
Bi = [Si, 0, ..., 0] (i.e one element is Si and rest are zeroes).
Let mi = the min difference found by our problem for arrays Ai and Bi
(we run our problem n times).
Claim: Some non-empty subset of T sums to zero if and only if, there is some i, for which mi = 0.
Proof: (wlog) say x1 + x2 + .. + xk = 0
Then
A = [xk+1, ..., xn, 0, ...0]
B = [x2, x3, ..., xk, S1, 0, ..0]
gives the minimum difference m1 to be |x2 + .. + xk + (x1 + ... + xn) + x1 - (xk+1 + .. + xn)| = |2(x1+ x2 + .. xk)| = 0.
Similarly the if part can be proved.
In fact, this actually also follows (more easily) from Partition too: just create new array with all zeroes.
Hoepfully I haven't made any mistakes.
Take any instance of the NP-complete partition problem:
Partition a multiset A of positive integers into two multisets B and C with the same sum
like {a1,a2,...,an}. Add n zeroes {0,0,0...,0,a1,...,an} and ask if the set can be partitioned into two multisets A and B with the same sum and same number of elements. I claim these two conditions are equivalent:
If A and B are a solution to the problem, then you can strike out the zeroes and get a solution of partiton problem.
If there is a solution to the partition problem, for example ai1 + ai2 + ... aik = aj1 + ... +ajl where {ai1, ai2, aik, aj1, ..., ajl} = {a1, ... , an} then obviously k+l = n. Add l zeroes to the left side and k zeroes to the right side and you'll get 0 + ... + 0 + ai1 + ai2 + ... aik = 0 + ... + 0 + aj1 + ... +ajl, whichi is a solution of your problem.
So, this is a reduction (so the problem is NP-hard) and the problem is NP, so it is NP-complete.
"sequences A[] and B[] of length N" -> does this mean both A and B are each of length N?
(For the purpose of clarity I am using 1-based arrays below).
If so, how about this:
Assume A[1..N] and B[1..N]
Concatenate A and B into a new array C of length 2N: C[1..N] <- A[1..N]; C[N+1 .. 2N] <- B[1..N]
Sort C in ascending order.
Take the first pair of numbers from C; send the first element (C[1]) to A[1] and second element (C[2]) to B[1]
Take the second pair of numbers from C; this time send the second element (C[4]) to A[2] and the first element (C[3]) to B[2] (the order of elements in the pair sent to A and B is the opposite of 3)
... repeat 3 and 4 until C is exhausted
The observation here is that, in a sorted array, an adjacent pair of numbers will have the smallest difference (compared to a pair of numbers from non-adjacent positions). Step 3 ensures that A[1] and B[1] consists of a pair of numbers with the least possible difference. Step 4 ensures that (a) A[2] and B[2] consist of a pair of numbers with the least possible difference (from the available numbers) and also (b) that the difference is opposite in sign from step 3. By continuing like this, we are ensuring that A[i] and B[i] contain numbers with the least possible difference. Also, by flipping the order in which we send elements to A and B, we are ensuring that the difference changes sign for each successive i.
Try being greedy about it. Given such limited information, I'm not sure what else one could put out there.
I'm not sure that this will ensure the minimum possible distance, but the first thing that comes to mi mind is something like this:
int diff=0;
for (int i = 0; i<len; i++){
int x = a[i] - b[i];
if (abs(diff - x) > abs(diff + x)){
swap(a,b,i);
diff-=x;
}else{
diff+=x;
}
}
assuming that you have a swap function which takes the two arrays and exchanges the items at position i :)
computing and adding the difference between the two values at position i you get the incremental difference between the sums of the elements of the two arrays.
at each step you check if it's better to add (a[i]-b[i]) or (b[i]-a[i]). if the b[i]-a[i] it's the case, you swap the elements at position i in the arrays.
Maybe this will not be the best way, but it should be a start :)
The problem is NP-Complete.
We can reduce the partition problem to the decision version of this problem, i.e. given two arrays of ints of the same size, determine whether items can be swapped so that the sums are equal.
The input to the partition problem: a set S of integers, of size N
In order to transform this input into an input to our problem, we define A to be an array of all items in S, and B an array of the same size, with B[i]=0 for all i. This transformation is linear in the input size.
It is clear that our algorithm applied on A and B returns true if and only if there is a partition of S into 2 subsets such that the sums are equal.