For exa, this is the tree.
10
12 -1
5 1 1 -2
2 3 10 -9
How to find the node with maximum value?
Given the problem as stated, you need to traverse the entire tree. See proof below.
Traversing the entire tree should be a fairly trivial process.
Proof that we need to traverse the entire tree:
Assume we're able to identify which side of a tree the maximum is on without traversing the entire tree.
Given any tree with the maximum node on the left. Call this maximum x.
Pick one of the leaf nodes on the right. Add 2 children to it: x+1 and -x-1.
Since x+1-x-1 = 0, adding these won't change the sum at the leaf we added it to, thus nor the sums at any other nodes in the tree.
Since this can be added to any leaf in the tree, and it doesn't affect the sums, we'd need to traverse the entire tree to find out if this occurs anywhere.
Thus our assumption that we can identify which side of a tree the maximum is on without traversing the entire tree is incorrect.
Thus we need to traverse the entire tree.
In the general case, you need to traverse the entire tree. If the values in the tree are not constrained (e.g. all non-negative, but in your example there are negative values), then the value in a node tells you nothing about the individual values below it.
Related
Consider a tree (unordered) in which the nodes are labelled 0 through n, with the root node always labelled 0.
I want to construct a separate tree, in which the parent of each non-root node m is its nearest ancestor with label less than m.
For example, given this tree:
the required output is:
Notice that node 2 has a lesser label than its parent 5, so it moves up the tree; node 4 is less than its parent 7 and its grandparent 5 so it moves up the tree to its great-grandparent 0.
The naïve approach is to process each node independently, traversing upwards until we encounter a lower label. This becomes very expensive for situations such as:
It feels like there should be a fairly straightforward sub-quadratic algorithm for processing such a rearrangement, but I can't formulate the right concoction or even find an obvious traversal order to minimise the amount of redundant processing. Is this a common problem with a well-defined solution?
The algorithm will be the following:
set 0 as the root of a tree
perform DFS on the original tree.
perform recursive inject.
recursive inject(node, parent):
if node larger than parent, inject as child of the parent.
otherwise recursive inject (node, parent.parent)
Suppose I have a binary tree in which a node can have either 0,1 or 2 children. A cost value is associated with each node, and it can be {5,10,20,40}. The most optimal placement of a new node is under a node with same or lower cost value. For example- a new node with cost value 20 is best placed under a node with cost value 20, but can also be placed under nodes with cost values 5 and 10.
Primary requirement of this algorithm is to complete the left and right child of a node if it is required, i.e. if a node with cost value 10 has a left child with cost value 10, then a new node having cost value 10 will be made the right child of the above node . The secondary requirement is to maximize the overall depth of the tree.
The tree cannot be rearranged at any point of time. If an incoming node is of lesser value, then there is no penalty involved.
Given the above requirements, how can we decide the best position of an incoming new node in the tree ? Can we write a general algorithm for it ?
Initially, I thought to complete each level of the tree first, but I don't think it would be optimal.
The secondary requirement is to maximize the overall depth of the tree.
That's a bit unusual.
The quickest way:
sort your input values
fill all the minimal value nodes (5's) in respect with the first requirement (still unclear if both left-right nodes must be filled in before going down a level. If it must then the max depth will be log2(N5) If "going deep on left" is allowed without filling in the right, then the max depth tree will degenerate in list with all right nodes to null).Call this the master tree
make a tree from the next values (say 10-value nodes) and attach this tree to the deepest branch of the master tree
repeat step 3 as necessary
Note: this is the simplest concept, the implementation may take advantage from the fact the master tree is sorted at all time and get over with the initial sort.
Input:
a rooted tree with n nodes;
each node p has positive integer weight w(p);
a node can have more than two children.
Problem:
divide the tree into k subtrees/partitions (obviously by removing k-1 edges);
subtree weight W(p) is the weight of all the nodes in a subtree rooted at node p;
all the subtrees should be weighted as evenly as possible - the difference between min(W(p)) and max(W(p)) should be as small as possible.
I've yet to find a suitable algorithm for this. Where should I start? Tips, instructions and pseudocode appreciated.
Assume you can't modify the tree other than to remove edges to create subtrees.
First understand that you cannot guarantee that by simply removing edges that you will have subtrees within an arbitrary bound. You can create tree that when you split them there is no way to create subtrees within a target bound. For example:
a(b(c,d,e,f),g)
You cannot split that into two balanced sections. The best you can do is remove the edge from a to b:
a(g) and b(c,d,e,f)
Also this criteria is a little underdefined when k > 2. What is better a split 10,10,10,1 or 10,10,6,5?
But you can come up with a method to split trees up in the most balanced way possible.
Implement you tree such that each node holds a count of all of its children. You can add this pretty efficiently to any tree. ( E.g. when you add a node you have to iterate up the chain of parent node incrementing the count. Remove a node and you iterate up subtracting from the count )
Then starting from the root iterate down, in a breadth first manner until you find a set of nodes that dominate child nodes in a way that is most balanced. I don't have an algorithm for this at the ready - but I think you can find one pretty readily.
I think something where when you want to divide into k subtrees you create an array of k tree roots. One of those nodes must always be the root of the current tree, then you iterate down looking for nodes to replace on of the k-1 candidates that improves the partitioning. You'll want some kind of terminating condition where you don't interate down to every leaf node. E.g. it never makes sense to subdivide anything by the largest candidate node.
How to find a loop in a binary tree? I am looking for a solution other than marking the visited nodes as visited or doing a address hashing. Any ideas?
Suppose you have a binary tree but you don't trust it and you think it might be a graph, the general case will dictate to remember the visited nodes. It is, somewhat, the same algorithm to construct a minimum spanning tree from a graph and this means the space and time complexity will be an issue.
Another approach would be to consider the data you save in the tree. Consider you have numbers of hashes so you can compare.
A pseudocode would test for this conditions:
Every node would have to have a maximum of 2 children and 1 parent (max 3 connections). More then 3 connections => not a binary tree.
The parent must not be a child.
If a node has two children, then the left child has a smaller value than the parent and the right child has a bigger value. So considering this, if a leaf, or inner node has as a child some node on a higher level (like parent's parent) you can determine a loop based on the values. If a child is a right node then it's value must be bigger then it's parent but if that child forms a loop, it means he is from the left part or the right part of the parent.
3.a. So if it is from the left part then it's value is smaller than it's sibling. So => not a binary tree. The idea is somewhat the same for the other part.
Testing aside, in what form is the tree that you want to test? Remeber that every node has a pointer to it's parent. An this pointer points to a single parent. So depending of the format you tree is in, you can take advantage from this.
As mentioned already: A tree does not (by definition) contain cycles (loops).
To test if your directed graph contains cycles (references to nodes already added to the tree) you can iterate trough the tree and add each node to a visited-list (or the hash of it if you rather prefer) and check each new node if it is in the list.
Plenty of algorithms for cycle-detection in graphs are just a google-search away.
here is the Balancing Act problem that demands to find the node that has the minimum balance in a tree. Balance is defined as :
Deleting any node
from the tree yields a forest : a collection of one or more trees. Define the balance of a node to be the size of the largest tree in the forest T created by deleting that node from T
For the sample tree like :
2 6 1 2 1 4 4 5 3 7 3 1
Explanation is :
Deleting node 4 yields two trees whose member nodes are {5} and {1,2,3,6,7}. The
larger of these two trees has five nodes, thus the balance of node 4 is five. Deleting node
1 yields a forest of three trees of equal size: {2,6}, {3,7}, and {4,5}. Each of these trees
has two nodes, so the balance of node 1 is two.
What kind of algorithm can you offer to this problem?
Thanks
I am going to assume that you have had a looong look at this problem: reading the solution does not help, you only get better at solving these problems by solving them yourself.
So one thing to observe is, the input is a tree. That means that each edge joins 2 smaller trees together. Removing an edge yields 2 disconnected trees (a forest of 2 trees).
So, if you calculate the size of the tree on one side of the edge, and then on the other, you should be able to look at a node's edges and ask "What is the size of the tree on the other side of this edge?"
You can calculate the sizes of trees using dynamic programming - your recurrence state is "What edge am I on? What side of the edge am I on?" and it calculates the size of the tree "hung" at that node. That is the crux of the problem.
Having that data, it is sufficient to iterate through all the nodes, look at their edges and ask "What is the size of the tree on the other side of this edge?" From there, you just pick the minimum.
Hope that helps.
You basically want to check 3 things for every node:
The size of its left subtree.
The size of its right subtree.
The size of the rest of the tree. (size of tree - left - right)
You can use this algorithm and expand it to any kind of tree (different number of subnodes).
Go over the tree in an in-order sequence.
Do this recursively:
Every time you just before you back up from a node to the "father" node, you need to add 1+size of node's total sub trees, to the "father" node.
Then store a value, let's call it maxTree, in the node that holds the maximum between all its subtrees, and the (sum of all subtrees)-(size of tree).
This way you can calculate all the subtree sizes in O(N).
While traversing the tree, you can hold a variable that hold the minimum value found so far.