Number of n-element permutations with exactly k inversions - algorithm

I am trying to efficiently solve SPOJ Problem 64: Permutations.
Let A = [a1,a2,...,an] be a permutation of integers 1,2,...,n. A pair
of indices (i,j), 1<=i<=j<=n, is an inversion of the permutation A if
ai>aj. We are given integers n>0 and k>=0. What is the number of
n-element permutations containing exactly k inversions?
For instance, the number of 4-element permutations with exactly 1
inversion equals 3.
To make the given example easier to see, here are the three 4-element permutations with exactly 1 inversion:
(1, 2, 4, 3)
(1, 3, 2, 4)
(2, 1, 3, 4)
In the first permutation, 4 > 3 and the index of 4 is less than the index of 3. This is a single inversion. Since the permutation has exactly one inversion, it is one of the permutations that we are trying to count.
For any given sequence of n elements, the number of permutations is factorial(n). Thus if I use the brute force n2 way of counting the number of inversions for each permutation and then checking to see if they are equal to k, the solution to this problem would have the time complexity O(n! * n2).
Previous Research
A subproblem of this problem was previously asked here on StackOverflow. An O(n log n) solution using merge sort was given which counts the number of inversions in a single permutation. However, if I use that solution to count the number of inversions for each permutation, I would still get a time complexity of O(n! * n log n) which is still very high in my opinion.
This exact question was also asked previously on Stack Overflow but it received no answers.
My goal is to avoid the factorial complexity that comes from iterating through all permutations. Ideally I would like a mathematical formula that yields the answer to this for any n and k but I am unsure if one even exists.
If there is no math formula to solve this (which I kind of doubt) then I have also seen people giving hints that an efficient dynamic programming solution is possible. Using DP or another approach, I would really like to formulate a solution which is more efficient than O(n! * n log n), but I am unsure of where to start.
Any hints, comments, or suggestions are welcome.
EDIT: I have answered the problem below with a DP approach to computing Mahonian numbers.

The solution needs some explanations.
Let's denote the number of permutations with n items having exactly k inversions
by I(n, k)
Now I(n, 0) is always 1. For any n there exist one and only one permutation which has 0
inversions i.e., when the sequence is increasingly sorted
Now I(0, k) is always 0 since we don't have the sequence itself
Now to find the I(n, k) let's take an example of sequence containing 4 elements
{1,2,3,4}
for n = 4 below are the permutations enumerated and grouped by number of inversions
|___k=0___|___k=1___|___k=2___|___k=3___|___k=4___|___k=5___|___k=6___|
| 1234 | 1243 | 1342 | 1432 | 2431 | 3421 | 4321 |
| | 1324 | 1423 | 2341 | 3241 | 4231 | |
| | 2134 | 2143 | 2413 | 3412 | 4312 | |
| | | 2314 | 3142 | 4132 | | |
| | | 3124 | 3214 | 4213 | | |
| | | | 4123 | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|I(4,0)=1 |I(4,1)=3 |I(4,2)=5 |I(4,3)=6 |I(4,4)=5 |I(4,5)=3 |I(4,6)=1 |
| | | | | | | |
Now to find the number of permutation with n = 5 and for every possible k
we can derive recurrence I(5, k) from I(4, k) by inserting the nth (largest)
element(5) somewhere in each permutation in the previous permutations,
so that the resulting number of inversions is k
for example, I(5,4) is nothing but the number of permutations of the sequence {1,2,3,4,5}
which has exactly 4 inversions each.
Let's observe I(4, k) now above until column k = 4 the number of inversions is <= 4
Now lets place the element 5 as shown below
|___k=0___|___k=1___|___k=2___|___k=3___|___k=4___|___k=5___|___k=6___|
| |5|1234 | 1|5|243 | 13|5|42 | 143|5|2 | 2431|5| | 3421 | 4321 |
| | 1|5|324 | 14|5|23 | 234|5|1 | 3241|5| | 4231 | |
| | 2|5|134 | 21|5|43 | 241|5|3 | 3412|5| | 4312 | |
| | | 23|5|14 | 314|5|4 | 4132|5| | | |
| | | 31|5|24 | 321|5|4 | 4213|5| | | |
| | | | 412|5|3 | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | | |
| | | | | | | |
Each of the above permutation which contains 5 has exactly 4 inversions.
So the total permutation with 4 inversions I(5,4) = I(4,4) + I(4,3) + I(4,2) + I(4,1) + I(4,0)
= 1 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 5 = 20
Similarly for I(5,5) from I(4,k)
|___k=0___|___k=1___|___k=2___|___k=3___|___k=4___|___k=5___|___k=6___|
| 1234 | |5|1243 | 1|5|342 | 14|5|32 | 243|5|1 | 3421|5| | 4321 |
| | |5|1324 | 1|5|423 | 23|5|41 | 324|5|1 | 4231|5| | |
| | |5|2134 | 2|5|143 | 24|5|13 | 341|5|2 | 4312|5| | |
| | | 2|5|314 | 31|5|44 | 413|5|2 | | |
| | | 3|5|124 | 32|5|14 | 421|5|3 | | |
| | | | 41|5|23 | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | |
| | | | | | | |
So the total permutation with 5 inversions I(5,5) = I(4,5) + I(4,4) + I(4,3) + I(4,2) + I(4,1)
= 3 + 5 + 6 + 5 + 3 = 22
So I(n, k) = sum of I(n-1, k-i) such that i < n && k-i >= 0
Also, k can go up to n*(n-1)/2 this occurs when the sequence is sorted in decreasing order
https://secweb.cs.odu.edu/~zeil/cs361/web/website/Lectures/insertion/pages/ar01s04s01.html
http://www.algorithmist.com/index.php/SPOJ_PERMUT1
#include <stdio.h>
int dp[100][100];
int inversions(int n, int k)
{
if (dp[n][k] != -1) return dp[n][k];
if (k == 0) return dp[n][k] = 1;
if (n == 0) return dp[n][k] = 0;
int j = 0, val = 0;
for (j = 0; j < n && k-j >= 0; j++)
val += inversions(n-1, k-j);
return dp[n][k] = val;
}
int main()
{
int t;
scanf("%d", &t);
while (t--) {
int n, k, i, j;
scanf("%d%d", &n, &k);
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
for (j = 0; j <= k; j++)
dp[i][j] = -1;
printf("%d\n", inversions(n, k));
}
return 0;
}

It's one day later and I have managed to solve the problem using dynamic programming. I submitted it and my code was was accepted by SPOJ so I figure I'll share my knowledge here for anyone who is interested in the future.
After looking in the Wikipedia page which discusses inversion in discrete mathematics, I found an interesting recommendation at the bottom of the page.
Numbers of permutations of n elements with k inversions; Mahonian
numbers: A008302
I clicked on the link to OEIS and it showed me an infinite sequence of integers called the Triangle of Mahonian numbers.
1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 1, 1, 4, 9, 15, 20, 22, 20, 15,
9, 4, 1, 1, 5, 14, 29, 49, 71, 90, 101, 101, 90, 71, 49, 29, 14, 5, 1,
1, 6, 20, 49, 98, 169, 259, 359, 455, 531, 573, 573, 531, 455, 359,
259, 169, 98, 49, 20, 6, 1 . . .
I was curious about what these numbers were since they seemed familiar to me. Then I realized that I had seen the subsequence 1, 3, 5, 6, 5, 3, 1 before. In fact, this was the answer to the problem for several pairs of (n, k), namely (4, 0), (4, 1), (4, 2), (4, 3), (4, 4), (4, 5), (4, 6). I looked at what was on both sides of this subsequence and was amazed to see that it was all valid (i.e. greater than 0 permutations) answers for n < 4 and n > 4.
The formula for the sequence was given as:
coefficients in expansion of Product_{i=0..n-1} (1+x+...+x^i)
This was easy enough for me to understand and verify. I could basically take any n and plug into the formula. Then the coefficient for the xk term would be the answer for (n, k).
I will show an example for n = 3.
(x0)(x0 + 1)(x0 + x1 + x2)
= (1)(1 + x)(1 + x + x2)
= (1 + x)(1 + x + x2)
= 1 + x + x + x2 + x2 + x3
= 1 + 2x + 2x2 + x3
The final expansion was 1 + 2x + 2x2 + x3 and the coefficients of the xk terms were 1, 2, 2, and 1 for k = 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. This just happens to be all valid numbers of inversions for 3-element permutations.
1, 2, 2, 1 is the 3rd row of the Mahonian numbers when they are laid out in a table as follows:
1
1 1
1 2 2 1
1 3 5 6 5 3 1
etc.
So basically computing my answer came down to simply calculating the nth Mahonian row and taking the kth element with k starting at 0 and printing 0 if the index was out of range. This was a simple case of bottom-up dynamic programming since each ith row could be used to easily compute the i+1st row.
Given below is the Python solution I used which ran in only 0.02 seconds. The maximum time limit for this problem was 3 seconds for their given test cases and I was getting a timeout error before so I think this optimization is rather good.
def mahonian_row(n):
'''Generates coefficients in expansion of
Product_{i=0..n-1} (1+x+...+x^i)
**Requires that n is a positive integer'''
# Allocate space for resulting list of coefficients?
# Initialize them all to zero?
#max_zero_holder = [0] * int(1 + (n * 0.5) * (n - 1))
# Current max power of x i.e. x^0, x^0 + x^1, x^0 + x^1 + x^2, etc.
# i + 1 is current row number we are computing
i = 1
# Preallocate result
# Initialize to answer for n = 1
result = [1]
while i < n:
# Copy previous row of n into prev
prev = result[:]
# Get space to hold (i+1)st row
result = [0] * int(1 + ((i + 1) * 0.5) * (i))
# Initialize multiplier for this row
m = [1] * (i + 1)
# Multiply
for j in range(len(m)):
for k in range(len(prev)):
result[k+j] += m[j] * prev[k]
# Result now equals mahonian_row(i+1)
# Possibly should be memoized?
i = i + 1
return result
def main():
t = int(raw_input())
for _ in xrange(t):
n, k = (int(s) for s in raw_input().split())
row = mahonian_row(n)
if k < 0 or k > len(row) - 1:
print 0
else:
print row[k]
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
I have no idea of the time complexity but I am absolutely certain this code can be improved through memoization since there are 10 given test cases and the computations for previous test cases can be used to "cheat" on future test cases. I will make that optimization in the future, but hopefully this answer in its current state will help anyone attempting this problem in the future since it avoids the naive factorial-complexity approach of generating and iterating through all permutations.

If there is a dynamic programming solution, there is probably a way to do it step by step, using the results for permutations of length n to help with the results for permutations of length n+1.
Given a permutation of length n - values 1-n, you can get a permutation of length n+1 by adding value (n+1) at n+1 possible positions. (n+1) is larger than any of 1-n so the number of inversions you create when you do this depends on where you add it - add it at the last position and you create no inversions, add it at the last but one position and you create one inversion, and so on - look back at the n=4 cases with one inversion to check this.
So if you consider one of n+1 places where you can add (n+1) if you add it at place j counting from the right so the last position as position 0 the number of permutations with K inversions this creates is the number of permutations with K-j inversions on n places.
So if at each step you count the number of permutations with K inversions for all possible K you can update the number of permutations with K inversions for length n+1 using the number of permutations with K inversions for length n.

A major problem in computing these coefficients is the size of the order of the resultant product. The polynomial Product i=1,2,..,n {(1+x).(1+x+x^2)....(1+x+x^2+..+x^i)+...(1+x+x^2+...+x^n) will have an order equivalent to n*(n+1). Consequently, this puts a restrictive computational limit on the process. If we use a process where the previous results for the Product for n-1 are used in the process for computation of the Product for n, we are looking at the storage of (n-1)*n integers. It is possible to use a recursive process, which will be much slower, and again it is limited to integers less than the square root of the common size of the integer. The following is some rough and ready recursive code for this problem. The function mahonian(r,c) returns the c th coefficient for the r th Product. But again it is extremely slow for large Products greater than 100 or so. Running this it can be seen that recursion is clearly not the answer.
unsigned int numbertheory::mahonian(unsigned int r, unsigned int c)
{
unsigned int result=0;
unsigned int k;
if(r==0 && c==0)
return 1;
if( r==0 && c!=0)
return 0;
for(k=0; k <= r; k++)
if(r > 0 && c >=k)
result = result + mahonian(r-1,c-k);
return result;
}
As a matter of interest I have included the following which is a c++ version of Sashank which is lot more faster than my recursion example. Note I use the armadillo library.
uvec numbertheory::mahonian_row(uword n){
uword i = 2;
uvec current;
current.ones(i);
uword current_size;
uvec prev;
uword prev_size;
if(n==0){
current.ones(1);
return current;
}
while (i <= n){ // increment through the rows
prev_size=current.size(); // reset prev size to current size
prev.set_size(prev_size); // set size of prev vector
prev= current; //copy contents of current to prev vector
current_size =1+ (i*(i+1)/2); // reset current_size
current.zeros(current_size); // reset current vector with zeros
for(uword j=0;j<i+1; j++) //increment through current vector
for(uword k=0; k < prev_size;k++)
current(k+j) += prev(k);
i++; //increment to next row
}
return current; //return current vector
}
uword numbertheory::mahonian_fast(uword n, uword c) {
**This function returns the coefficient of c order of row n of
**the Mahonian numbers
// check for input errors
if(c >= 1+ (n*(n+1)/2)) {
cout << "Error. Invalid input parameters" << endl;
}
uvec mahonian;
mahonian.zeros(1+ (n*(n+1)/2));
mahonian = mahonian_row(n);
return mahonian(c);
}

We can make use to dynamic programming to solve this problem. we have n place to fill with numbers to from 1 to n, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ take n=7, then at very first place we can achieve atmost n-1 inversion and at least 0 , similarly for second place we can achieve atmost n-2 inversion and at least 0, in general, we can achieve atmost n-i inversions at ith index, irrespective of the choice of number we place before.
our recursive formula will look like :
f(n,k) = f(n-1,k) + f(n-1,k-1) + f(n-1,k-2) ............. f(n-1,max(0,k-(n-1))
no inversion one inversion two inversion n-1 inversion
we can achieve 0 inversions by placing smallest of the remaining number from the set (1,n)
1 inversion by placing second smallest and so on,
base condition for our recursive formula will be.
if( i==0 && k==0 ) return 1(valid permutation)
if( i==0 && k!=0 ) return 0 (invalid permutation).
if we draw recursion tree we will see subproblems repeated multiple times, Hence use memoization to reduce complexity to O(n*k).

Related

Fast calculation of probability distribution in board game Da Vinci Code

I'm interested in efficiently calculating the probability distribution over possible secret numbers given what one can observe of the opponents' hand (and your own hand) in the board game Da Vinci Code. A link to the game here: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8946/da-vinci-code
I have abstracted the problem into the following:
You are given an array A of length N and a finite set of numbers Si for each index i of the array. Now,
we are to place a number from Si at each index i to fill the entire array A;
while ensuring that the number is unique across the entire array A;
and for 3 disjoint subarrays A1, A2, A3 of A such that concat(A1, A2, A3) = A, the numbers in each subarray must follow a strictly increasing order;
given all the possible numbers to form A that satisfy the above constraints, what is the probability ditribution over each number at each index?
Here I provide an example below:
Assuming we have the following array of length 5 with each column representing Si at the index of the column
| 6 6 | 6 6 | 6 |
| 5 | 5 | |
| 4 4 | | 4 |
| | 3 3 | |
| 2 | 2 2 | |
| 1 1 | | |
| ___ | __ | _ |
| A1 | A2 | A3|
The set of all possible arrays are:
14236
14256
14356
15234
15236
15264
15364
16234
16254
16354
24356
25364
26354
45236
Therefore the probability distribution over each number [1-6] at each index is:
6 0 4/14 0 3/14 6/14
5 0 6/14 0 6/14 0
4 1/14 4/14 0 0 8/14
3 0 0 6/14 5/14 0
2 3/14 0 8/14 0 0
1 10/14 0 0 0 0
___________ __________ ______
A1 A2 A3
Brute forcing this problem is obviously doable but I have a gut feeling that there must be some more efficient algorithms for this.
The reason why I think so is due to the fact that one can derive the probability distribution from the set of all possibilities but not the other way around, so the distribution itself must contain less information than the set of all possibilities have. Therefore, I believe that we do not need to generate all possibilites just to obtain the probability distribution.
Hence, I am wondering if there is any smart matrix operation we could use for this problem or even fixed-point iteration/density evolution to approximate the end probability distribution? Some other potentially more efficient approaches to this problem are also appreciated.
Edit: By brute-force, I mean specifically enumerating all possibilities with constraint propagation like in sudoku. My hope is to obtain an accurate solution, or a approximate solution that approximates well (better than plain monte carlo), that works better than CP in terms of running time.
Edit2: The better solution I desire should have the characteristic that it does not need to generate all possibilities to obtain or approximate the probability distribution.
Did you consider Constraint Propagation?
When you assign a number to a position, that number cannot appear in any other position, so exclude that number from the remaining positions
When you assign a number in the first column of a subarray, the second column must contain a larger value, so exclude all values that are lower or equal
With a BF approach in your example the code would generate and check 4 * 4 * 3 * 4 * 2 = 384 possibilities; with the CP approach we only generate 65 possibilities.
Here is a sample Python implementation:
from dataclasses import dataclass, field
from typing import Dict, List
#dataclass
class DaVinci:
grid : List[List[int]]
top : int
lastcol : int = 0
solved : List = field(default_factory=list)
count : int = 0
distrib : List[Dict[int,int]] = field(init=False)
def __post_init__(self):
self.lastcol = len(self.grid)-1
self.distrib = [{x:0 for x in range(1,self.top+1)} for y in range(len(self.grid))]
self.solve_next(current = 0, even = True, blocked = [], minval = 0, solving = [])
self.count = len(self.solved)
def solve_next(self, current, even, blocked, minval, solving):
found = False
for n in self.grid[current]:
if n not in blocked and n > minval:
if current != self.lastcol:
self.solve_next(current + 1, not even, blocked + [n], n * even, solving + [n])
else:
for col in range(self.lastcol):
self.distrib[col][solving[col]] += 1
self.distrib[self.lastcol][n] += 1
self.solved.append(solving + [n])
def show_solved(self):
for sol in self.solved:
print(''.join(map(str,sol)))
def show_distrib(self):
for i in range(1, self.top+1):
print(i, end = ' ')
for col in range(len(self.grid)):
print(f'{self.distrib[col][i]:2d}/{self.count}', end = ' ')
print()
dv = DaVinci([[1,2,4,6],[1,4,5,6],[2,3,6],[2,3,5,6],[4,6]], 6)
dv.show_solved()
14236
14256
14356
15234
15236
15264
15364
16234
16254
16354
24356
25364
26354
45236
dv.show_distrib()
1 10/14 0/14 0/14 0/14 0/14
2 3/14 0/14 8/14 0/14 0/14
3 0/14 0/14 6/14 5/14 0/14
4 1/14 4/14 0/14 0/14 8/14
5 0/14 6/14 0/14 6/14 0/14
6 0/14 4/14 0/14 3/14 6/14
A simple idea to get an approximation for the distribution is to use a Monte Carlo approach.
Set a variable total: = 0 and a matrix M[N][Q] with all entries initially set to zero (Q is the total of numbers allowed).
Fix a positive integer K. Perform K iterations. At each iteration, for each i in [1..N], take a random element from Si and fill the array A. When the array A is all filled, verify in O(N) if it satisfies your conditions. If so, increment by one the variable total and iterate through the array, incrementing the matrix entries M[i][A[i]] by one, for i in [1..N].
In the end, iterate through all the elements of the matrix M in O(N Q) and divide its elements by total to get an approximation for the distribution.
Total time complexity is O(N (K + Q)).
You can also precalculate stuff to make the approximation more precise. For example, you can precalculate all increasing sequences in the groups A1, A2 and A3. Put them in arrays I1, I2, I3. Then, at each iteration, instead of taking random elements from each Si, you take random sequences from I1, I2 and I3 and verify if the concatenation has no repeated elements (in O(N)). If so, proceed as before. The total time complexity (apart from the expensive precalculation) remains O(N (K + Q)).
Start by converting all legal subarray selections into bitvectors.
E.g., for A2 we have [2,3], [2,5], [2,6], [3,5], [3,6]
[2,3] as a bitvector is 000110
[3,5] is 010100
Next, arrange your three subarrays by the number of bitvectors they have.
Next, put these in a hash for each subarray/member combination except the smallest subarray. Use the smallest set bit as the key.
E.g. For [2,3] in A2, we'd have {2 => 000110}
Note that the values of the map to be in an array since there will be multiple bitvectors for each index/element combo.
Finally,
For every bitvec of subarray_small:
For every non-set bit of that bitvec
Find the list that has that bit as a key in subarray_medium
For every bitvec in this list
Check if the inverse of (bitvec_small | bitvec_medium) is in the hash for subarray_large.
If it is, we have a valid arrangement; update your frequency counts.

How to balance fill int into a symmetric matrix

Suppose I have a matrix A, it is symmetric. That is A(i,j)=A(j,i)
The value of A(i,j) can be i or j.
How can I fill the value into matrix A to make sure the exist times of each value as close as possible? (or as balance as possible)? Is there any algorithm can handle this?
Example A:
A = 1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2
1 2 3 3
1 2 3 4
exist times of 1 is 7
exist times of 2 is 5
exist times of 3 is 3
exist times of 4 is 1
Example B:
A = 1 2 1 1
2 2 3 2
1 3 3 4
1 2 4 4
exist times of 1 is 5
exist times of 2 is 4
exist times of 3 is 3
exist times of 4 is 3
In example B the values is (5,4,3,3), they are closer than example A (7,5,3,1)
I am looking forward a solution for nxn matrix.
Extend
If the matrix is sparse, that is the some element can not be filled in matrix. Which algorithm can be used to handle this problem?
Thanks for your time.
Found one solution, but without a real algorithm...
1 2 3 1 1
2 2 3 4 2
3 3 3 4 5
1 4 4 4 5
1 2 5 5 5
Basically: 25/5=5, looked for how to fill with 5 of each 1-5.
for 5 - reversed L from corner,
then up and left one spot for 4s,
and for 3s.
got "creative" for 2s and 1s...
I guess it's kind of algorithm...
Here is a solution written in python based on Weighted Bipartite Matching (or the isomorphic Minimum Cost Flow problem.)
#!/usr/bin/python
"""
filename: mcf_matrix_assign.py
purpose: demonstrate the use of weighted bipartite matching (isomorphic to MCF
with a suitable transform) to solve a matrix assignment problem with
certain conditions and optimization goals.
"""
import networkx as nx
N = 5
K = N # ensure K is large enough to satisfy flow, N <= K <= N*N
# setting K larger simply means a longer runtime
G = nx.DiGraph()
total_demand = 0
for i in range(N*N):
# assert a row-major linear indexing of the matrix
row, col = i / N, i % N
if row >= col:
continue # symmetry fix certain values
total_demand += 1
G.add_node('s'+str(i),demand=-1);
G.add_edge('s'+str(i), 'v'+str(row), weight = 0, capacity = 1)
G.add_edge('s'+str(i), 'v'+str(col), weight = 0, capacity = 1)
G.add_node('sink', demand = total_demand)
# attach each 'value' to the sink with incrementally larger weight
for i in range(N):
for j in range(K):
dummy_node = 'v'+str(i)+'w'+str(j)
G.add_edge('v'+str(i), dummy_node, weight = j, capacity = 1)
G.add_edge(dummy_node, 'sink', weight = 0, capacity = 1)
flow_dict = nx.min_cost_flow(G)
# decode the solution to get the matrix assignment reported by the MCF (or
# equivalently weighted bipartite matching)
solution = [ -1 for i in range(N*N) ]
for i in range(N*N):
# assert a row-major linear indexing of the matrix
row, col = i / N, i % N
if row == col:
solution[i] = row
continue # symmetry fix certain values
if row > col:
solution[i] = solution[col*N+row]
continue # symmetry fix certain values
adjacency = flow_dict['s'+str(i)]
solution[i] = row if adjacency['v'+str(row)] == 1 else col;
# print the solution
for row in range(N):
print ''.join(['-' for _ in range(4*N+1)])
print '|',
for col in range(N):
print str(solution[row*N+col]+1) + ' |',
print '\n',
print ''.join(['-' for _ in range(4*N+1)])
print 'Histogram summary:'
counts = [ (i+1, sum([ 0 if s != i else 1 for s in solution ])) for i in range(N) ]
for value, count in counts:
print ' Value ', value, " appears ", count, " times."
This produces the solution:
---------------------
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
---------------------
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
---------------------
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
---------------------
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
---------------------
| 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
---------------------
Histogram summary:
Value 1 appears 5 times.
Value 2 appears 5 times.
Value 3 appears 5 times.
Value 4 appears 5 times.
Value 5 appears 5 times.
And here is the solution when N=4 in the script.
-----------------
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
-----------------
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
-----------------
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
-----------------
| 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
-----------------
Histogram summary:
Value 1 appears 3 times.
Value 2 appears 3 times.
Value 3 appears 5 times.
Value 4 appears 5 times.
It's fairly easy to prove that this will always find an optimal answer in polynomial time.
Explanation
It is probably easiest to explain what is happening by describing the graph construction for a small case. For this discussion, fix N=3.
In this case we have a matrix assignment with variables
X s0 s1
X X s2
X X X
where X denotes a fixed value and sk denotes the kth slot in the array to fill.
In this case we also have 3 available value assignments [1,2,3] for each of the slots sk. (This is where it is easy to make modifications to the "allowed" values for any sk.)
If we construct a bipartite graph between the slots sk and the value assignments v1,v2,v3 in a way that edges of capacity 1 and weight zero are used to connect sk to each legal vi assignment, we can then solve it easily using MCF.
For illustration, the appropriate graph for N=3 is shown below:
Once the minimum cost flow is computed, we can decode the assignment by checking which edges are used in the solution.
A note on performance
networkx was used here in python purely out of convenience, it is by no means efficient in any sense of the word. The quality of implementation of the MCF algorithm in networkx is quite low and I would not recommend trying to scale it up.
For serious application, I would instead recommend the lemon MCF library (in particular the cost-scaling algorithm is competitive) or, you can use Andrew Goldberg's implementation of cost-scaling (which is hard to find but exists) and is probably quite efficient as well.
There is a special pattern to follow in order to get the best possible result. For each column (of row 1), start filling the matrix diagonally with values 1, 2, ..., n, fixing the correspondent symmetric slot. At the end, you will have the best possible result.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
int n = 4; //size of matrix
int values[n]; for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) values[i] = 0;
int matrix[n][n]; for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) for(int j = 0; j < n; j++) matrix[i][j] = -1;
for(int c = 0; c < n; c++){
int i = 0, j = c;
for(int x = 0; x < n; x++){
if(matrix[i][j] != -1) {
break;
}
matrix[i][j] = matrix[j][i] = x;
i = (i + 1) % n;
j = (j + 1) % n;
}
}
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
for(int j = 0; j < n; j++){
cout<<matrix[i][j] + 1<<" ";
values[matrix[i][j]]++;
}
cout<<endl;
}
cout<<endl;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
cout<<(i + 1)<<" appears "<<values[i]<<" times"<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
OUTPUT
1 1 1 4
1 2 2 2
1 2 3 3
4 2 3 4
1 appears 5 times
2 appears 5 times
3 appears 3 times
4 appears 3 times
You can test it here.
The complexity is O(n²), since you have to fill all the matrix.
When n is odd, the solution is always n occurrences for each number, but when n is even, this is impossible.

Logic behind including / excluding current element in recursive approach

I'm studying DP nowadays however I've run into previously some examples like subset sum or as shown in this question coin change problem that their solutions call recursive cases both including the current element and excluding the current element. Yet, I've genuinely difficulty in comprehending what/why it's real reason by doing this approach. I cannot get the underneath logic behind of it. I don't want to memorize or to say "humm, okay, keep in mind it, there is an approach" like that styles.
class Util
{
// Function to find the total number of distinct ways to get
// change of N from unlimited supply of coins in set S
public static int count(int[] S, int n, int N)
{
// if total is 0, return 1 (solution found)
if (N == 0) {
return 1;
}
// return 0 (solution do not exist) if total become negative or
// no elements are left
if (N < 0 || n < 0) {
return 0;
}
// Case 1. include current coin S[n] in solution and recurse
// with remaining change (N - S[n]) with same number of coins
int incl = count(S, n, N - S[n]);
// Case 2. exclude current coin S[n] from solution and recurse
// for remaining coins (n - 1)
int excl = count(S, n - 1, N);
// return total ways by including or excluding current coin
return incl + excl;
}
// Coin Change Problem
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// n coins of given denominations
int[] S = { 1, 2, 3 };
// Total Change required
int N = 4;
System.out.print("Total number of ways to get desired change is "
+ count(S, S.length - 1, N));
}
}
I don't want to skip the parts superficially since recurrence formulas are really play leading role for dynamic programming.
At each recursion you want to explore both cases:
one more coin of type n is used
you are done with coin type n and proceed to the next coin type
The remaining task is handled in both cases by a recursive call.
By the way, this solution has nothing to do with dynamic programming.
In the common powerset problem, given (1 2 3) we are asked to generate ((1 2 3) (1 2) (1 3) (1) (2 3) (2) (3) ()). We can use this with and without technique to generate the result.
+---+ +---------------------------+ +--------------------------------------------+
| +-with----> ((1 2 3) (1 2) (1 3) (1)) | | |
| 1 | | +-----> ((1 2 3) (1 2) (1 3) (1) (2 3) (2) (3) ()) |
| +-without-> ((2 3) (2) (3) ()) | | |
+-^-+ +---------------------------+ +--------------------------------------------+
|
+-------------------------------------------+
|
+---+ +-------------+ +-----------+--------+
| +-with------> ((2 3) (2)) | | |
| 2 | | +---> ((2 3) (2) (3) ()) |
| +-without---> ((3) ()) | | |
+-^-+ +-------------+ +--------------------+
|
+--------------------------------+
|
+---+ +-----+ +------+--------+
| +-with------> (3) | | |
| 3 | | +-----> ((3) ()) |
| +-without---> () | | |
+-^-+ +-----+ +---------------+
|
|
+-+-+
|() |
| | <- base case
+---+

Intersection ranges (algorithm)

As example I have next arrays:
[100,192]
[235,280]
[129,267]
As intersect arrays we get:
[129,192]
[235,267]
Simple exercise for people but problem for creating algorithm that find second multidim array…
Any language, any ideas..
If somebody do not understand me:
I'll assume you wish to output any range that has 2 or more overlapping intervals.
So the output for [1,5], [2,4], [3,3] will be (only) [2,4].
The basic idea here is to use a sweep-line algorithm.
Split the ranges into start- and end-points.
Sort the points.
Now iterate through the points with a counter variable initialized to 0.
If you get a start-point:
Increase the counter.
If the counter's value is now 2, record that point as the start-point for a range in the output.
If you get an end-point
Decrease the counter.
If the counter's value is 1, record that point as the end-point for a range in the output.
Note:
If a start-point and an end-point have the same value, you'll need to process the end-point first if the counter is 1 and the start-point first if the counter is 2 or greater, otherwise you'll end up with a 0-size range or a 0-size gap between two ranges in the output.
This should be fairly simple to do by having a set of the following structure:
Element
int startCount
int endCount
int value
Then you combine all points with the same value into one such element, setting the counts appropriately.
Running time:
O(n log n)
Example:
Input:
[100, 192]
[235, 280]
[129, 267]
(S for start, E for end)
Points | | 100 | 129 | 192 | 235 | 267 | 280 |
Type | | Start | Start | End | Start | End | End |
Count | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Output | | | [129, | 192] | [235, | 267] | |
This is python implementation of intersection algorithm. Its computcomputational complexity O(n^2).
a = [[100,192],[235,280],[129,267]]
def get_intersections(diapasons):
intersections = []
for d in diapasons:
for check in diapasons:
if d == check:
continue
if d[0] >= check[0] and d[0] <= check[1]:
right = d[1]
if check[1] < d[1]:
right = check[1]
intersections.append([d[0], right])
return intersections
print get_intersections(a)

nᵗʰ ugly number

Numbers whose only prime factors are 2, 3, or 5 are called ugly numbers.
Example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, ...
1 can be considered as 2^0.
I am working on finding nth ugly number. Note that these numbers are extremely sparsely distributed as n gets large.
I wrote a trivial program that computes if a given number is ugly or not. For n > 500 - it became super slow. I tried using memoization - observation: ugly_number * 2, ugly_number * 3, ugly_number * 5 are all ugly. Even with that it is slow. I tried using some properties of log - since that will reduce this problem from multiplication to addition - but, not much luck yet. Thought of sharing this with you all. Any interesting ideas?
Using a concept similar to Sieve of Eratosthenes (thanks Anon)
for (int i(2), uglyCount(0); ; i++) {
if (i % 2 == 0)
continue;
if (i % 3 == 0)
continue;
if (i % 5 == 0)
continue;
uglyCount++;
if (uglyCount == n - 1)
break;
}
i is the nth ugly number.
Even this is pretty slow. I am trying to find the 1500th ugly number.
A simple fast solution in Java. Uses approach described by Anon..
Here TreeSet is just a container capable of returning smallest element in it. (No duplicates stored.)
int n = 20;
SortedSet<Long> next = new TreeSet<Long>();
next.add((long) 1);
long cur = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
cur = next.first();
System.out.println("number " + (i + 1) + ": " + cur);
next.add(cur * 2);
next.add(cur * 3);
next.add(cur * 5);
next.remove(cur);
}
Since 1000th ugly number is 51200000, storing them in bool[] isn't really an option.
edit
As a recreation from work (debugging stupid Hibernate), here's completely linear solution. Thanks to marcog for idea!
int n = 1000;
int last2 = 0;
int last3 = 0;
int last5 = 0;
long[] result = new long[n];
result[0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < n; ++i) {
long prev = result[i - 1];
while (result[last2] * 2 <= prev) {
++last2;
}
while (result[last3] * 3 <= prev) {
++last3;
}
while (result[last5] * 5 <= prev) {
++last5;
}
long candidate1 = result[last2] * 2;
long candidate2 = result[last3] * 3;
long candidate3 = result[last5] * 5;
result[i] = Math.min(candidate1, Math.min(candidate2, candidate3));
}
System.out.println(result[n - 1]);
The idea is that to calculate a[i], we can use a[j]*2 for some j < i. But we also need to make sure that 1) a[j]*2 > a[i - 1] and 2) j is smallest possible.
Then, a[i] = min(a[j]*2, a[k]*3, a[t]*5).
I am working on finding nth ugly number. Note that these numbers are extremely sparsely distributed as n gets large.
I wrote a trivial program that computes if a given number is ugly or not.
This looks like the wrong approach for the problem you're trying to solve - it's a bit of a shlemiel algorithm.
Are you familiar with the Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm for finding primes? Something similar (exploiting the knowledge that every ugly number is 2, 3 or 5 times another ugly number) would probably work better for solving this.
With the comparison to the Sieve I don't mean "keep an array of bools and eliminate possibilities as you go up". I am more referring to the general method of generating solutions based on previous results. Where the Sieve gets a number and then removes all multiples of it from the candidate set, a good algorithm for this problem would start with an empty set and then add the correct multiples of each ugly number to that.
My answer refers to the correct answer given by Nikita Rybak.
So that one could see a transition from the idea of the first approach to that of the second.
from collections import deque
def hamming():
h=1;next2,next3,next5=deque([]),deque([]),deque([])
while True:
yield h
next2.append(2*h)
next3.append(3*h)
next5.append(5*h)
h=min(next2[0],next3[0],next5[0])
if h == next2[0]: next2.popleft()
if h == next3[0]: next3.popleft()
if h == next5[0]: next5.popleft()
What's changed from Nikita Rybak's 1st approach is that, instead of adding next candidates into single data structure, i.e. Tree set, one can add each of them separately into 3 FIFO lists. This way, each list will be kept sorted all the time, and the next least candidate must always be at the head of one ore more of these lists.
If we eliminate the use of the three lists above, we arrive at the second implementation in Nikita Rybak' answer. This is done by evaluating those candidates (to be contained in three lists) only when needed, so that there is no need to store them.
Simply put:
In the first approach, we put every new candidate into single data structure, and that's bad because too many things get mixed up unwisely. This poor strategy inevitably entails O(log(tree size)) time complexity every time we make a query to the structure. By putting them into separate queues, however, you will see that each query takes only O(1) and that's why the overall performance reduces to O(n)!!! This is because each of the three lists is already sorted, by itself.
I believe you can solve this problem in sub-linear time, probably O(n^{2/3}).
To give you the idea, if you simplify the problem to allow factors of just 2 and 3, you can achieve O(n^{1/2}) time starting by searching for the smallest power of two that is at least as large as the nth ugly number, and then generating a list of O(n^{1/2}) candidates. This code should give you an idea how to do it. It relies on the fact that the nth number containing only powers of 2 and 3 has a prime factorization whose sum of exponents is O(n^{1/2}).
def foo(n):
p2 = 1 # current power of 2
p3 = 1 # current power of 3
e3 = 0 # exponent of current power of 3
t = 1 # number less than or equal to the current power of 2
while t < n:
p2 *= 2
if p3 * 3 < p2:
p3 *= 3
e3 += 1
t += 1 + e3
candidates = [p2]
c = p2
for i in range(e3):
c /= 2
c *= 3
if c > p2: c /= 2
candidates.append(c)
return sorted(candidates)[n - (t - len(candidates))]
The same idea should work for three allowed factors, but the code gets more complex. The sum of the powers of the factorization drops to O(n^{1/3}), but you need to consider more candidates, O(n^{2/3}) to be more precise.
A lot of good answers here, but I was having trouble understanding those, specifically how any of these answers, including the accepted one, maintained the axiom 2 in Dijkstra's original paper:
Axiom 2. If x is in the sequence, so is 2 * x, 3 * x, and 5 * x.
After some whiteboarding, it became clear that the axiom 2 is not an invariant at each iteration of the algorithm, but actually the goal of the algorithm itself. At each iteration, we try to restore the condition in axiom 2. If last is the last value in the result sequence S, axiom 2 can simply be rephrased as:
For some x in S, the next value in S is the minimum of 2x,
3x, and 5x, that is greater than last. Let's call this axiom 2'.
Thus, if we can find x, we can compute the minimum of 2x, 3x, and 5x in constant time, and add it to S.
But how do we find x? One approach is, we don't; instead, whenever we add a new element e to S, we compute 2e, 3e, and 5e, and add them to a minimum priority queue. Since this operations guarantees e is in S, simply extracting the top element of the PQ satisfies axiom 2'.
This approach works, but the problem is that we generate a bunch of numbers we may not end up using. See this answer for an example; if the user wants the 5th element in S (5), the PQ at that moment holds 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 15 15 20 25. Can we not waste this space?
Turns out, we can do better. Instead of storing all these numbers, we simply maintain three counters for each of the multiples, namely, 2i, 3j, and 5k. These are candidates for the next number in S. When we pick one of them, we increment only the corresponding counter, and not the other two. By doing so, we are not eagerly generating all the multiples, thus solving the space problem with the first approach.
Let's see a dry run for n = 8, i.e. the number 9. We start with 1, as stated by axiom 1 in Dijkstra's paper.
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| # | i | j | k | 2i | 3j | 5k | S |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| initial | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | {1} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | {1,2} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | {1,2,3} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | {1,2,3,4} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | {1,2,3,4,5} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6,8} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 9 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
Notice that S didn't grow at iteration 6, because the minimum candidate 6 had already been added previously. To avoid this problem of having to remember all of the previous elements, we amend our algorithm to increment all the counters whenever the corresponding multiples are equal to the minimum candidate. That brings us to the following Scala implementation.
def hamming(n: Int): Seq[BigInt] = {
#tailrec
def next(x: Int, factor: Int, xs: IndexedSeq[BigInt]): Int = {
val leq = factor * xs(x) <= xs.last
if (leq) next(x + 1, factor, xs)
else x
}
#tailrec
def loop(i: Int, j: Int, k: Int, xs: IndexedSeq[BigInt]): IndexedSeq[BigInt] = {
if (xs.size < n) {
val a = next(i, 2, xs)
val b = next(j, 3, xs)
val c = next(k, 5, xs)
val m = Seq(2 * xs(a), 3 * xs(b), 5 * xs(c)).min
val x = a + (if (2 * xs(a) == m) 1 else 0)
val y = b + (if (3 * xs(b) == m) 1 else 0)
val z = c + (if (5 * xs(c) == m) 1 else 0)
loop(x, y, z, xs :+ m)
} else xs
}
loop(0, 0, 0, IndexedSeq(BigInt(1)))
}
Basicly the search could be made O(n):
Consider that you keep a partial history of ugly numbers. Now, at each step you have to find the next one. It should be equal to a number from the history multiplied by 2, 3 or 5. Chose the smallest of them, add it to history, and drop some numbers from it so that the smallest from the list multiplied by 5 would be larger than the largest.
It will be fast, because the search of the next number will be simple:
min(largest * 2, smallest * 5, one from the middle * 3),
that is larger than the largest number in the list. If they are scarse, the list will always contain few numbers, so the search of the number that have to be multiplied by 3 will be fast.
Here is a correct solution in ML. The function ugly() will return a stream (lazy list) of hamming numbers. The function nth can be used on this stream.
This uses the Sieve method, the next elements are only calculated when needed.
datatype stream = Item of int * (unit->stream);
fun cons (x,xs) = Item(x, xs);
fun head (Item(i,xf)) = i;
fun tail (Item(i,xf)) = xf();
fun maps f xs = cons(f (head xs), fn()=> maps f (tail xs));
fun nth(s,1)=head(s)
| nth(s,n)=nth(tail(s),n-1);
fun merge(xs,ys)=if (head xs=head ys) then
cons(head xs,fn()=>merge(tail xs,tail ys))
else if (head xs<head ys) then
cons(head xs,fn()=>merge(tail xs,ys))
else
cons(head ys,fn()=>merge(xs,tail ys));
fun double n=n*2;
fun triple n=n*3;
fun ij()=
cons(1,fn()=>
merge(maps double (ij()),maps triple (ij())));
fun quint n=n*5;
fun ugly()=
cons(1,fn()=>
merge((tail (ij())),maps quint (ugly())));
This was first year CS work :-)
To find the n-th ugly number in O (n^(2/3)), jonderry's algorithm will work just fine. Note that the numbers involved are huge so any algorithm trying to check whether a number is ugly or not has no chance.
Finding all of the n smallest ugly numbers in ascending order is done easily by using a priority queue in O (n log n) time and O (n) space: Create a priority queue of numbers with the smallest numbers first, initially including just the number 1. Then repeat n times: Remove the smallest number x from the priority queue. If x hasn't been removed before, then x is the next larger ugly number, and we add 2x, 3x and 5x to the priority queue. (If anyone doesn't know the term priority queue, it's like the heap in the heapsort algorithm). Here's the start of the algorithm:
1 -> 2 3 5
1 2 -> 3 4 5 6 10
1 2 3 -> 4 5 6 6 9 10 15
1 2 3 4 -> 5 6 6 8 9 10 12 15 20
1 2 3 4 5 -> 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 15 15 20 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 6 8 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 18 20 25 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 8 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 18 20 25 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 -> 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 16 18 20 24 25 30 40
Proof of execution time: We extract an ugly number from the queue n times. We initially have one element in the queue, and after extracting an ugly number we add three elements, increasing the number by 2. So after n ugly numbers are found we have at most 2n + 1 elements in the queue. Extracting an element can be done in logarithmic time. We extract more numbers than just the ugly numbers but at most n ugly numbers plus 2n - 1 other numbers (those that could have been in the sieve after n-1 steps). So the total time is less than 3n item removals in logarithmic time = O (n log n), and the total space is at most 2n + 1 elements = O (n).
I guess we can use Dynamic Programming (DP) and compute nth Ugly Number. Complete explanation can be found at http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/ugly-numbers/
#include <iostream>
#define MAX 1000
using namespace std;
// Find Minimum among three numbers
long int min(long int x, long int y, long int z) {
if(x<=y) {
if(x<=z) {
return x;
} else {
return z;
}
} else {
if(y<=z) {
return y;
} else {
return z;
}
}
}
// Actual Method that computes all Ugly Numbers till the required range
long int uglyNumber(int count) {
long int arr[MAX], val;
// index of last multiple of 2 --> i2
// index of last multiple of 3 --> i3
// index of last multiple of 5 --> i5
int i2, i3, i5, lastIndex;
arr[0] = 1;
i2 = i3 = i5 = 0;
lastIndex = 1;
while(lastIndex<=count-1) {
val = min(2*arr[i2], 3*arr[i3], 5*arr[i5]);
arr[lastIndex] = val;
lastIndex++;
if(val == 2*arr[i2]) {
i2++;
}
if(val == 3*arr[i3]) {
i3++;
}
if(val == 5*arr[i5]) {
i5++;
}
}
return arr[lastIndex-1];
}
// Starting point of program
int main() {
long int num;
int count;
cout<<"Which Ugly Number : ";
cin>>count;
num = uglyNumber(count);
cout<<endl<<num;
return 0;
}
We can see that its quite fast, just change the value of MAX to compute higher Ugly Number
Using 3 generators in parallel and selecting the smallest at each iteration, here is a C program to compute all ugly numbers below 2128 in less than 1 second:
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#if 0
typedef unsigned long long ugly_t;
#define UGLY_MAX (~(ugly_t)0)
#else
typedef __uint128_t ugly_t;
#define UGLY_MAX (~(ugly_t)0)
#endif
int print_ugly(int i, ugly_t u) {
char buf[64], *p = buf + sizeof(buf);
*--p = '\0';
do { *--p = '0' + u % 10; } while ((u /= 10) != 0);
return printf("%d: %s\n", i, p);
}
int main() {
int i = 0, n2 = 0, n3 = 0, n5 = 0;
ugly_t u, ug2 = 1, ug3 = 1, ug5 = 1;
#define UGLY_COUNT 110000
ugly_t ugly[UGLY_COUNT];
while (i < UGLY_COUNT) {
u = ug2;
if (u > ug3) u = ug3;
if (u > ug5) u = ug5;
if (u == UGLY_MAX)
break;
ugly[i++] = u;
print_ugly(i, u);
if (u == ug2) {
if (ugly[n2] <= UGLY_MAX / 2)
ug2 = 2 * ugly[n2++];
else
ug2 = UGLY_MAX;
}
if (u == ug3) {
if (ugly[n3] <= UGLY_MAX / 3)
ug3 = 3 * ugly[n3++];
else
ug3 = UGLY_MAX;
}
if (u == ug5) {
if (ugly[n5] <= UGLY_MAX / 5)
ug5 = 5 * ugly[n5++];
else
ug5 = UGLY_MAX;
}
}
return 0;
}
Here are the last 10 lines of output:
100517: 338915443777200000000000000000000000000
100518: 339129266201729628114355465608000000000
100519: 339186548067800934969350553600000000000
100520: 339298130282929870605468750000000000000
100521: 339467078447341918945312500000000000000
100522: 339569540691046437734055936000000000000
100523: 339738624000000000000000000000000000000
100524: 339952965770562084651663360000000000000
100525: 340010386766614455386112000000000000000
100526: 340122240000000000000000000000000000000
Here is a version in Javascript usable with QuickJS:
import * as std from "std";
function main() {
var i = 0, n2 = 0, n3 = 0, n5 = 0;
var u, ug2 = 1n, ug3 = 1n, ug5 = 1n;
var ugly = [];
for (;;) {
u = ug2;
if (u > ug3) u = ug3;
if (u > ug5) u = ug5;
ugly[i++] = u;
std.printf("%d: %s\n", i, String(u));
if (u >= 0x100000000000000000000000000000000n)
break;
if (u == ug2)
ug2 = 2n * ugly[n2++];
if (u == ug3)
ug3 = 3n * ugly[n3++];
if (u == ug5)
ug5 = 5n * ugly[n5++];
}
return 0;
}
main();
here is my code , the idea is to divide the number by 2 (till it gives remainder 0) then 3 and 5 . If at last the number becomes one it's a ugly number.
you can count and even print all ugly numbers till n.
int count = 0;
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++) {
int temp = i;
while (temp % 2 == 0) temp=temp / 2;
while (temp % 3 == 0) temp=temp / 3;
while (temp % 5 == 0) temp=temp / 5;
if (temp == 1) {
cout << i << endl;
count++;
}
}
This problem can be done in O(1).
If we remove 1 and look at numbers between 2 through 30, we will notice that there are 22 numbers.
Now, for any number x in the 22 numbers above, there will be a number x + 30 in between 31 and 60 that is also ugly. Thus, we can find at least 22 numbers between 31 and 60. Now for every ugly number between 31 and 60, we can write it as s + 30. So s will be ugly too, since s + 30 is divisible by 2, 3, or 5. Thus, there will be exactly 22 numbers between 31 and 60. This logic can be repeated for every block of 30 numbers after that.
Thus, there will be 23 numbers in the first 30 numbers, and 22 for every 30 after that. That is, first 23 uglies will occur between 1 and 30, 45 uglies will occur between 1 and 60, 67 uglies will occur between 1 and 30 etc.
Now, if I am given n, say 137, I can see that 137/22 = 6.22. The answer will lie between 6*30 and 7*30 or between 180 and 210. By 180, I will have 6*22 + 1 = 133rd ugly number at 180. I will have 154th ugly number at 210. So I am looking for 4th ugly number (since 137 = 133 + 4)in the interval [2, 30], which is 5. The 137th ugly number is then 180 + 5 = 185.
Another example: if I want the 1500th ugly number, I count 1500/22 = 68 blocks. Thus, I will have 22*68 + 1 = 1497th ugly at 30*68 = 2040. The next three uglies in the [2, 30] block are 2, 3, and 4. So our required ugly is at 2040 + 4 = 2044.
The point it that I can simply build a list of ugly numbers between [2, 30] and simply find the answer by doing look ups in O(1).
Here is another O(n) approach (Python solution) based on the idea of merging three sorted lists. The challenge is to find the next ugly number in increasing order. For example, we know the first seven ugly numbers are [1,2,3,4,5,6,8]. The ugly numbers are actually from the following three lists:
list 1: 1*2, 2*2, 3*2, 4*2, 5*2, 6*2, 8*2 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 2 )
list 2: 1*3, 2*3, 3*3, 4*3, 5*3, 6*3, 8*3 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 3 )
list 3: 1*5, 2*5, 3*5, 4*5, 5*5, 6*5, 8*5 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 5 )
So the nth ugly number is the nth number of the list merged from the three lists above:
1, 1*2, 1*3, 2*2, 1*5, 2*3 ...
def nthuglynumber(n):
p2, p3, p5 = 0,0,0
uglynumber = [1]
while len(uglynumber) < n:
ugly2, ugly3, ugly5 = uglynumber[p2]*2, uglynumber[p3]*3, uglynumber[p5]*5
next = min(ugly2, ugly3, ugly5)
if next == ugly2: p2 += 1 # multiply each number
if next == ugly3: p3 += 1 # only once by each
if next == ugly5: p5 += 1 # of the three factors
uglynumber += [next]
return uglynumber[-1]
STEP I: computing three next possible ugly numbers from the three lists
ugly2, ugly3, ugly5 = uglynumber[p2]*2, uglynumber[p3]*3, uglynumber[p5]*5
STEP II, find the one next ugly number as the smallest of the three above:
next = min(ugly2, ugly3, ugly5)
STEP III: moving the pointer forward if its ugly number was the next ugly number
if next == ugly2: p2+=1
if next == ugly3: p3+=1
if next == ugly5: p5+=1
note: not using if with elif nor else
STEP IV: adding the next ugly number into the merged list uglynumber
uglynumber += [next]

Resources