I was given the following code and was told to find the best and worst case running times in big theta notation.
def find(a, target):
x = 0
y = len(a)
while x < y:
m = (x+y)/2
if a[m] < target:
x = m+1
elif a[m] > target:
y = m
else:
return m
return -1
I know that the running time of this code in the worst case is O(lg(n)). But the question I was given if the fifth line was changed from "m=(x+y)/2" to "m=(2*x+y)/3" would the running time change?
My intuition is that the running time gets a little larger as it is no longer cutting the list in half like binary search should do which is less efficient, but I am not sure how to calculate what big O would be at this point
Lets say that for worst case, we are searching for the element that resides last in the array of N elements.
After 1st iteration, the list shall reduce to 2N/3.
After 2nd iteration, the list shall reduce to 4N/9
.
.
.
After (k-1)th iteration the list shall reduce to 2 elements
After kth iteration we shall finally find our candidate.
Hence N * (power(2/3,k)) = 1.
k ~ log (N) to base 1.5
Related
Let A be a sorted array containing n distinct positive integers. Let x be a positive integer such that both x and 2x are not in A.
Describe an efficient algorithm to find the number of integers in A that are larger than x and smaller than 2x
what is the complexity of the algorithm? can someone write a pseudo code without using libraries?
I know this can be done with a linear time complexity but binary search could be modify to achieve this.
The following is the linear time complexity solution I came up with
def find_integers(A, x):
integers = 0
for element in A:
if element > x and element < 2*x:
integers += 1
return integers
As you already found out you can use binary search. Search for x and 2x and note the positions in the list, you can calculate the number of integers from the differnce between the two positions.
Since you are using python, the bisect module can help you with binary search.
I'm on a bit of a mission to improve everybody's default binary search. As I described in this answer: How can I simplify this working Binary Search code in C? ...
...pretty much all of my binary searches search for positions instead of elements, since it's faster and easier to get right.
It's also easily adaptable to situations like this:
def countBetweenXand2X(A,x):
if x<=0:
return 0
# find position of first element > x
minpos = 0
maxpos = len(A)
while minpos < maxpos:
testpos = minpos + (maxpos-minpos)//2
if A[testpos] > x:
maxpos = testpos
else:
minpos = testpos+1
start = minpos;
# find position of first element >= 2x
maxpos = len(A)
while minpos < maxpos:
testpos = minpos + (maxpos-minpos)//2
if A[testpos] >= x*2:
maxpos = testpos
else:
minpos = testpos+1
return minpos - start
This is just 2 binary searches, so the complexity remains O(log N). Also note that the second search begins at the position found in the first search, since we know the second position must be >= the first one. We accomplish that just by leaving minpos alone instead of resetting it to zero.
I have a number n and a set of numbers S ∈ [1..n]* with size s (which is substantially smaller than n). I want to sample a number k ∈ [1..n] with equal probability, but the number is not allowed to be in the set S.
I am trying to solve the problem in at worst O(log n + s). I am not sure whether it's possible.
A naive approach is creating an array of numbers from 1 to n excluding all numbers in S and then pick one array element. This will run in O(n) and is not an option.
Another approach may be just generating random numbers ∈[1..n] and rejecting them if they are contained in S. This has no theoretical bound as any number could be sampled multiple times even if it is in the set. But on average this might be a practical solution if s is substantially smaller than n.
Say s is sorted. Generate a random number between 1 and n-s, call it k. We've chosen the k'th element of {1,...,n} - s. Now we need to find it.
Use binary search on s to find the count of the elements of s <= k. This takes O(log |s|). Add this to k. In doing so, we may have passed or arrived at additional elements of s. We can adjust for this by incrementing our answer for each such element that we pass, which we find by checking the next larger element of s from the point we found in our binary search.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 3. So our approach should return the third element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 6. Binary search finds that 1 element is at most 3, so we increment to 4. Now we compare to the next larger element of s which is 4 so increment to 5. Repeating this finds 5 in so we increment to 6. We check s once more, see that 6 isn't in it, so we stop.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 4. So our approach should return the fourth element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 7. Binary search finds that 2 elements are at most 4, so we increment to 6. Now we compare to the next larger element of s which is 5 so increment to 7. We check s once more, see that the next number is > 7, so we stop.
If we assume that "s is substantially smaller than n" means |s| <= log(n), then we will increment at most log(n) times, and in any case at most s times.
If s is not sorted then we can do the following. Create an array of bits of size s. Generate k. Parse s and do two things: 1) count the number of elements < k, call this r. At the same time, set the i'th bit to 1 if k+i is in s (0 indexed so if k is in s then the first bit is set).
Now, increment k a number of times equal to r plus the number of set bits is the array with an index <= the number of times incremented.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 4. So our approach should return the fourth element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 7. We parse s and 1) note that 1 element is below 4 (r=1), and 2) set our array to [1, 1, 0, 0]. We increment once for r=1 and an additional two times for the two set bits, ending up at 7.
This is O(s) time, O(s) space.
This is an O(1) solution with O(s) initial setup that works by mapping each non-allowed number > s to an allowed number <= s.
Let S be the set of non-allowed values, S(i), where i = [1 .. s] and s = |S|.
Here's a two part algorithm. The first part constructs a hash table based only on S in O(s) time, the second part finds the random value k ∈ {1..n}, k ∉ S in O(1) time, assuming we can generate a uniform random number in a contiguous range in constant time. The hash table can be reused for new random values and also for new n (assuming S ⊂ { 1 .. n } still holds of course).
To construct the hash, H. First set j = 1. Then iterate over S(i), the elements of S. They do not need to be sorted. If S(i) > s, add the key-value pair (S(i), j) to the hash table, unless j ∈ S, in which case increment j until it is not. Finally, increment j.
To find a random value k, first generate a uniform random value in the range s + 1 to n, inclusive. If k is a key in H, then k = H(k). I.e., we do at most one hash lookup to insure k is not in S.
Python code to generate the hash:
def substitute(S):
H = dict()
j = 1
for s in S:
if s > len(S):
while j in S: j += 1
H[s] = j
j += 1
return H
For the actual implementation to be O(s), one might need to convert S into something like a frozenset to insure the test for membership is O(1) and also move the len(S) loop invariant out of the loop. Assuming the j in S test and the insertion into the hash (H[s] = j) are constant time, this should have complexity O(s).
The generation of a random value is simply:
def myrand(n, s, H):
k = random.randint(s + 1, n)
return (H[k] if k in H else k)
If one is only interested in a single random value per S, then the algorithm can be optimized to improve the common case, while the worst case remains the same. This still requires S be in a hash table that allows for a constant time "element of" test.
def rand_not_in(n, S):
k = random.randint(len(S) + 1, n);
if k not in S: return k
j = 1
for s in S:
if s > len(S):
while j in S: j += 1
if s == k: return j
j += 1
Optimizations are: Only generate the mapping if the random value is in S. Don't save the mapping to a hash table. Short-circuit the mapping generation when the random value is found.
Actually, the rejection method seems like the practical approach.
Generate a number in 1...n and check whether it is forbidden; regenerate until the generated number is not forbidden.
The probability of a single rejection is p = s/n.
Thus the expected number of random number generations is 1 + p + p^2 + p^3 + ... which is 1/(1-p), which in turn is equal to n/(n-s).
Now, if s is much less than n, or even more up to s = n/2, this expected number is at most 2.
It would take s almost equal to n to make it infeasible in practice.
Multiply the expected time by log s if you use a tree-set to check whether the number is in the set, or by just 1 (expected value again) if it is a hash-set. So the average time is O(1) or O(log s) depending on the set implementation. There is also O(s) memory for storing the set, but unless the set is given in some special way, implicitly and concisely, I don't see how it can be avoided.
(Edit: As per comments, you do this only once for a given set.
If, additionally, we are out of luck, and the set is given as a plain array or list, not some fancier data structure, we get O(s) expected time with this approach, which still fits into the O(log n + s) requirement.)
If attacks against the unbounded algorithm are a concern (and only if they truly are), the method can include a fall-back algorithm for the cases when a certain fixed number of iterations didn't provide the answer.
Similarly to how IntroSort is QuickSort but falls back to HeapSort if the recursion depth gets too high (which is almost certainly a result of an attack resulting in quadratic QuickSort behavior).
Find all numbers that are in a forbidden set and less or equal then n-s. Call it array A.
Find all numbers that are not in a forbidden set and greater then n-s. Call it array B. It may be done in O(s) if set is sorted.
Note that lengths of A and B are equal, and create mapping map[A[i]] = B[i]
Generate number t up to n-s. If there is map[t] return it, otherwise return t
It will work in O(s) insertions to a map + 1 lookup which is either O(s) in average or O(s log s)
The value of the function ((n/m) + m-1) will be minimum when m = √n. Therefore, the best step size is m = √n.
Here, n is size of array and m is block size to be jumped.
I understood that n/m is the jumps that we make for the worst case, m-1 is the times that is taken for linear search once we find the interval (arr[km] < x < arr[(k+1)m]).
But i don't understand how m=√n is found. I'm trying as below.
(n/m)+m-1=0;
(n/m)+m=1;
n+m^2=m;
n=m-m^2.
But how does this become m = m=√n
I am assuming you want to find the minimum for any n.
(n/m)+m-1
The minimum is where the gradient is 0.
So differentiate the expression with respect to m:
d/dm (n/m)+m-1 = 1-n/m^2
And solving 1-n/m^2 = 0 gives you m = sqrt(n)
How do I write pseudocode for the following problem?
Given two sorted arrays X and Y with lg n and n keys respectively. I need a space and time efficient algorithm that finds the keys common to X and Y and prints them. It should run in o(sqrt n), i.e. (small 'o')time.
My attempt: Do you think binary search would be an option ?
Here is what I make of it. There are two sorted arrays with log(n) and n elements. You need to find the elements common to both.
You can iterate through X and binary search for each element of X in Y. If the search is successful, print the element. That would be in f(x) = c * (log(n))^2 time, where c is some constant.
As for every k > 0, you can find a constant a such that f(x) < k * sqrt(n) holds for all x > a, hence this solution is o(sqrt(n)).
EDIT: Here is the pseudocode (pretty simple):
input X
input Y
n = number of elements in Y
for i = 0 to n:
if(binary_search(X[i] in Y) = found)print X[i]
For Shikhar Gupta's solution,I have one improvement. Shikhar's solution doesn't make use of the fact that X is sorted too.So through every iteration,we can reduce the lower or higher boundary of Y.This can reduce the run time as well.
In order to prove O((log(n))^2) < O(sqrt(n)),we only need to prove the derivative of the first is smaller than the second.Which means 2log(n)/n < 1/sqrt(n).Then we have to prove log(n) < sqrt(n).This is pretty tricky.
I have an interview question that I can't seem to figure out. Given an array of size N, find the subset of size k such that the elements in the subset are the furthest apart from each other. In other words, maximize the minimum pairwise distance between the elements.
Example:
Array = [1,2,6,10]
k = 3
answer = [1,6,10]
The bruteforce way requires finding all subsets of size k which is exponential in runtime.
One idea I had was to take values evenly spaced from the array. What I mean by this is
Take the 1st and last element
find the difference between them (in this case 10-1) and divide that by k ((10-1)/3=3)
move 2 pointers inward from both ends, picking out elements that are +/- 3 from your previous pick. So in this case, you start from 1 and 10 and find the closest elements to 4 and 7. That would be 6.
This is based on the intuition that the elements should be as evenly spread as possible. I have no idea how to prove it works/doesn't work. If anyone knows how or has a better algorithm please do share. Thanks!
This can be solved in polynomial time using DP.
The first step is, as you mentioned, sort the list A. Let X[i,j] be the solution for selecting j elements from first i elements A.
Now, X[i+1, j+1] = max( min( X[k,j], A[i+1]-A[k] ) ) over k<=i.
I will leave initialization step and memorization of subset step for you to work on.
In your example (1,2,6,10) it works the following way:
1 2 6 10
1 - - - -
2 - 1 5 9
3 - - 1 4
4 - - - 1
The basic idea is right, I think. You should start by sorting the array, then take the first and the last elements, then determine the rest.
I cannot think of a polynomial algorithm to solve this, so I would suggest one of the two options.
One is to use a search algorithm, branch-and-bound style, since you have a nice heuristic at hand: the upper bound for any solution is the minimum size of the gap between the elements picked so far, so the first guess (evenly spaced cells, as you suggested) can give you a good baseline, which will help prune most of the branches right away. This will work fine for smaller values of k, although the worst case performance is O(N^k).
The other option is to start with the same baseline, calculate the minimum pairwise distance for it and then try to improve it. Say you have a subset with minimum distance of 10, now try to get one with 11. This can be easily done by a greedy algorithm -- pick the first item in the sorted sequence such that the distance between it and the previous item is bigger-or-equal to the distance you want. If you succeed, try increasing further, if you fail -- there is no such subset.
The latter solution can be faster when the array is large and k is relatively large as well, but the elements in the array are relatively small. If they are bound by some value M, this algorithm will take O(N*M) time, or, with a small improvement, O(N*log(M)), where N is the size of the array.
As Evgeny Kluev suggests in his answer, there is also a good upper bound on the maximum pairwise distance, which can be used in either one of these algorithms. So the complexity of the latter is actually O(N*log(M/k)).
You can do this in O(n*(log n) + n*log(M)), where M is max(A) - min(A).
The idea is to use binary search to find the maximum separation possible.
First, sort the array. Then, we just need a helper function that takes in a distance d, and greedily builds the longest subarray possible with consecutive elements separated by at least d. We can do this in O(n) time.
If the generated array has length at least k, then the maximum separation possible is >=d. Otherwise, it's strictly less than d. This means we can use binary search to find the maximum value. With some cleverness, you can shrink the 'low' and 'high' bounds of the binary search, but it's already so fast that sorting would become the bottleneck.
Python code:
def maximize_distance(nums: List[int], k: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given an array of numbers and size k, uses binary search
to find a subset of size k with maximum min-pairwise-distance"""
assert len(nums) >= k
if k == 1:
return [nums[0]]
nums.sort()
def longest_separated_array(desired_distance: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given a distance, returns a subarray of nums
of length k with pairwise differences at least that distance (if
one exists)."""
answer = [nums[0]]
for x in nums[1:]:
if x - answer[-1] >= desired_distance:
answer.append(x)
if len(answer) == k:
break
return answer
low, high = 0, (nums[-1] - nums[0])
while low < high:
mid = (low + high + 1) // 2
if len(longest_separated_array(mid)) == k:
low = mid
else:
high = mid - 1
return longest_separated_array(low)
I suppose your set is ordered. If not, my answer will be changed slightly.
Let's suppose you have an array X = (X1, X2, ..., Xn)
Energy(Xi) = min(|X(i-1) - Xi|, |X(i+1) - Xi|), 1 < i <n
j <- 1
while j < n - k do
X.Exclude(min(Energy(Xi)), 1 < i < n)
j <- j + 1
n <- n - 1
end while
$length = length($array);
sort($array); //sorts the list in ascending order
$differences = ($array << 1) - $array; //gets the difference between each value and the next largest value
sort($differences); //sorts the list in ascending order
$max = ($array[$length-1]-$array[0])/$M; //this is the theoretical max of how large the result can be
$result = array();
for ($i = 0; i < $length-1; $i++){
$count += $differences[i];
if ($length-$i == $M - 1 || $count >= $max){ //if there are either no more coins that can be taken or we have gone above or equal to the theoretical max, add a point
$result.push_back($count);
$count = 0;
$M--;
}
}
return min($result)
For the non-code people: sort the list, find the differences between each 2 sequential elements, sort that list (in ascending order), then loop through it summing up sequential values until you either pass the theoretical max or there arent enough elements remaining; then add that value to a new array and continue until you hit the end of the array. then return the minimum of the newly created array.
This is just a quick draft though. At a quick glance any operation here can be done in linear time (radix sort for the sorts).
For example, with 1, 4, 7, 100, and 200 and M=3, we get:
$differences = 3, 3, 93, 100
$max = (200-1)/3 ~ 67
then we loop:
$count = 3, 3+3=6, 6+93=99 > 67 so we push 99
$count = 100 > 67 so we push 100
min(99,100) = 99
It is a simple exercise to convert this to the set solution that I leave to the reader (P.S. after all the times reading that in a book, I've always wanted to say it :P)