Related
Given an array of integers which are needed to be split into four
boxes such that sum of XOR's of the boxes is maximum.
I/P -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
O/P -- 9
Explanation: Box1--[1,2]
Box2--[1,2]
Box3--[1,2]
Box4--[]
I've tried using recursion but failed for larger test cases as the
Time Complexity is exponential. I'm expecting a solution using dynamic
programming.
def max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4,A,index,size):
if index == size:
return b1+b2+b3+b4
m=max(max_Xor(b1^A[index],b2,b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2^A[index],b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3^A[index],b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4^A[index],A,index+1,size))
return m
def main():
print(max_Xor(0,0,0,0,A,0,len(A)))
Thanks in Advance!!
There are several things to speed up your algorithm:
Build in some start-up logic: it doesn't make sense to put anything into box 3 until boxes 1 & 2 are differentiated. In fact, you should generally have an order of precedence to keep you from repeating configurations in a different order.
Memoize your logic; this avoids repeating computations.
For large cases, take advantage of what value algebra exists.
This last item may turn out to be the biggest saving. For instance, if your longest numbers include several 5-bit and 4-bit numbers, it makes no sense to consider shorter numbers until you've placed those decently in the boxes, gaining maximum advantage for the leading bits. With only four boxes, you cannot have a num from 3-bit numbers that dominates a single misplaced 5-bit number.
Your goal is to place an odd number of 5-bit numbers into 3 or all 4 boxes; against this, check only whether this "pessimizes" bit 4 of the remaining numbers. For instance, given six 5-digit numbers (range 16-31) and a handful of small ones (0-7), your first consideration is to handle only combinations that partition the 5-digit numbers by (3, 1, 1, 1), as this leaves that valuable 5-bit turned on in each set.
With a more even mixture of values in your input, you'll also need to consider how to distribute the 4-bits for a similar "keep it odd" heuristic. Note that, as you work from largest to smallest, you need worry only about keeping it odd, and watching the following bit.
These techniques should let you prune your recursion enough to finish in time.
We can use Dynamic programming here to break the problem into smaller sets then store their result in a table. Then use already stored result to calculate answer for bigger set.
For example:
Input -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
We need to divide the array consecutively into 4 boxed such that sum of XOR of all boxes is maximised.
Lets take your test case, break the problem into smaller sets and start solving for smaller set.
box = 1, num = [1,2,1,2,1,2]
ans = 1 3 2 0 1 3
Since we only have one box so all numbers will go into this box. We will store this answer into a table. Lets call the matrix as DP.
DP[1] = [1 3 2 0 1 3]
DP[i][j] stores answer for distributing 0-j numbers to i boxes.
now lets take the case where we have two boxes and we will take numbers one by one.
num = [1] since we only have one number it will go into the first box.
DP[1][0] = 1
Lets add another number.
num = [1 2]
now there can be two ways to put this new number into the box.
case 1: 2 will go to the First box. Since we already have answer
for both numbers in one box. we will just use that.
answer = DP[0][1] + 0 (Second box is empty)
case 2: 2 will go to second box.
answer = DP[0][0] + 2 (only 2 is present in the second box)
Maximum of the two cases will be stored in DP[1][1].
DP[1][1] = max(3+0, 1+2) = 3.
Now for num = [1 2 1].
Again for new number we have three cases.
box1 = [1 2 1], box2 = [], DP[0][2] + 0
box1 = [1 2], box2 = [1], DP[0][1] + 1
box1 = [1 ], box2 = [2 1], DP[0][0] + 2^1
Maximum of these three will be answer for DP[1][2].
Similarly we can find answer of num = [1 2 1 2 1 2] box = 4
1 3 2 0 1 3
1 3 4 6 5 3
1 3 4 6 7 9
1 3 4 6 7 9
Also note that a xor b xor a = b. you can use this property to get xor of a segment of an array in constant time as suggested in comments.
This way you can break the problem in smaller subset and use smaller set answer to compute for the bigger ones. Hope this helps. After understanding the concept you can go ahead and implement it with better time than exponential.
I would go bit by bit from the highest bit to the lowest bit. For every bit, try all combinations that distribute the still unused numbers that have that bit set so that an odd number of them is in each box, nothing else matters. Pick the best path overall. One issue that complicates this greedy method is that two boxes with a lower bit set can equal one box with the next higher bit set.
Alternatively, memoize the boxes state in your recursion as an ordered tuple.
I'm searching for a data structure that can be sorted as fast as a plain list and which should allow to remove elements in the following way. Let's say we have a list like this:
[{2,[1]},
{6,[2,1]},
{-4,[3,2,1]},
{-2,[4,3,2,1]},
{-4,[5,4,3,2,1]},
{4,[2]},
{-6,[3,2]},
{-4,[4,3,2]},
{-6,[5,4,3,2]},
{-10,[3]},
{18,[4,3]},
{-10,[5,4,3]},
{2,[4]},
{0,[5,4]},
{-2,[5]}]
i.e. a list containing tuples (this is Erlang syntax). Each tuple contains a number, and a list which includes the members of a list used to compute previous number. What I want to do with the list is the following. First, sort it, then take the head of the list, and finally clean the list. With clean I mean to remove all the elements from the tail that contain elements that are in the head, or, in other words, all the elements from the tail which intersection with head is not empty. For example, after sorting the head is {18,[4,3]}. Next step is removing all the elements of the list that contain 4 or 3, i.e. the resulting list should be this one:
[{6,[2,1]},
{4,[2]},
{2,[1]},
{-2,[5]}]
The process follows by taking the new head and cleaning again till the whole list is consumed. Note that if the the clean process preserves the order, there is no need to resorting the list each iteration.
The bottleneck here is the clean process. I would need some structure which allows me to do the cleaning in a faster way than now.
Does anyone know some structure that allows to do this in an efficient way without losing the order or at least allowing fast sorting?
Yes, you can get faster than this. Your problem is that you are representing the second tuple members as lists. Searching them is cumbersome and quite unnecessary. They are all contiguous substrings of 5..1. You could simply represent them as a tuple of indices!
And in fact you don't even need a list with these index tuples. Put them in a two-dimensional array right at the position given by the respective tuple, and you'll get a triangular array:
h\l| 1 2 3 4 5
---+----------------------
1 | 2
2 | 6 2
3 | -4 -6 -10
4 | -2 -4 18 2
5 | -4 -10 -10 0 -2
Instead of storing the data in a two-dimensional array, you might want to store them in a simple array with some index magic to account for the triangular shape (if your programming language only allows for rectangular two-dimensional arrays), but that doesn't affect complexity.
This is all the structure you need to quickly filter the "list" by simply looking the things up.
Instead of sorting first and getting the head, we simply iterate once through the whole structure to find the maximum value and its indices:
max_val = 18
max = (4, 3) // the two indices
The filter is quite simple. If we don't use lists (not (any (substring `contains`) selection)) or sets (isEmpty (intersect substring selection)) but tuples then it's just sel.high < substring.low || sel.low > substring.high. And we don't even need to iterate the whole triangular array, we can simple iterate the higer and the lower triangles:
result = []
for (i from 1 until max[1])
for (j from i until max[1])
result.push({array[j][i], (j,i)})
for (i from max[0] until 5)
for (j from i until 5)
result.push({array[j+1][i+1], (j+1,i+1)})
And you've got the elements you need:
[{ 2, (1,1)},
{ 6, (2,1)},
{ 4, (2,2)},
{-2, (5,5)}]
Now you only need to sort that and you've got your result.
Actually the overall complexity doesn't get better with the triangular array. You still got O(n) from building the list and finding the maximum. Whether you filter in O(n) by testing against every substring index tuple, or filter in O(|result|) by smart selection doesn't matter any more, but you were specifically asking about a fast cleaning step. This still might be beneficial in reality if the data is large, or when you need to do multiple cleanings.
The only thing affecting overall complexity is to sort only the result, not the whole input.
I wonder if your original data structure can be seen as an adjacency list for a directed graph? E.g;
{2,[1]},
{6,[2,1]}
means you have these nodes and edges;
node 2 => node 1
node 6 => node 2
node 6 => node 1
So your question can be rewritten as;
If I find a node that links to nodes 4 and 3, what happens to the graph if I delete nodes 4 and 3?
One approach would be to build an adjacency matrix; an NxN bit matrix where every edge is the 1-bit. Your problem now becomes;
set every bit in the 4-row, and every bit in the 4-column, to zero.
That is, nothing links in or out of this deleted node.
As an optimisation, keep a bit array of length N. The bit is set if the node hasn't been deleted. So if nodes 1, 2, 4, and 5 are 'live' and 3 and 6 are 'deleted', the array looks like
[1,1,0,1,1,0]
Now to delete '4', you just clear the bit;
[1,1,0,0,1,0]
When you're done deleting, go through the adjacency matrix, but ignore any edge that's encoded in a row or column with 0 set.
Full example. Lets say you have
[ {2, [1,3]},
{3, [1]},
{4, [2,3]} ]
That's the adjacency matrix
1 2 3 4
1 0 0 0 0 # no entry for 1
2 1 0 1 0 # 2, [1,3]
3 1 0 0 0 # 3, [1]
4 0 1 1 0 # 4, [2,3]
and the mask
[1 1 1 1]
To delete node 2, you just alter the mask;
[1 0 1 1]
Now, to figure out the structure, pseudocode like:
rows = []
for r in 1..4:
if mask[r] == false:
# this row was deleted
continue;
targets = []
for c in 1..4:
if mask[c] == true && matrix[r,c]:
# this node wasn't deleted and was there before
targets.add(c)
if (!targets.empty):
rows.add({ r, targets})
Adjacency matrices can get large - it's NxN bits, after all - so this will only better on small, dense matrices, not large, sparse ones.
If this isn't great, you might find that it's easier to google for graph algorithms than invent them yourself :)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Finding sorted sub-sequences in a permutation
Given an array A which holds a permutation of 1,2,...,n. A sub-block A[i..j]
of an array A is called a valid block if all the numbers appearing in A[i..j]
are consecutive numbers (may not be in order）.
Given an array A= [ 7 3 4 1 2 6 5 8] the valid blocks are [3 4], [1,2], [6,5],
[3 4 1 2], [3 4 1 2 6 5], [7 3 4 1 2 6 5], [7 3 4 1 2 6 5 8]
So the count for above permutation is 7.
Give an O( n log n) algorithm to count the number of valid blocks.
Ok, I am down to 1 rep because I put 200 bounty on a related question: Finding sorted sub-sequences in a permutation
so I cannot leave comments for a while.
I have an idea:
1) Locate all permutation groups. They are: (78), (34), (12), (65). Unlike in group theory, their order and position, and whether they are adjacent matters. So, a group (78) can be represented as a structure (7, 8, false), while (34) would be (3,4,true). I am using Python's notation for tuples, but it is actually might be better to use a whole class for the group. Here true or false means contiguous or not. Two groups are "adjacent" if (max(gp1) == min(gp2) + 1 or max(gp2) == min(gp1) + 1) and contigous(gp1) and contiguos(gp2). This is not the only condition, for union(gp1, gp2) to be contiguous, because (14) and (23) combine into (14) nicely. This is a great question for algo class homework, but a terrible one for interview. I suspect this is homework.
Just some thoughts:
At first sight, this sounds impossible: a fully sorted array would have O(n2) valid sub-blocks.
So, you would need to count more than one valid sub-block at a time. Checking the validity of a sub-block is O(n). Checking whether a sub-block is fully sorted is O(n) as well. A fully sorted sub-block contains n·(n - 1)/2 valid sub-blocks, which you can count without further breaking this sub-block up.
Now, the entire array is obviously always valid. For a divide-and-conquer approach, you would need to break this up. There are two conceivable breaking points: the location of the highest element, and that of the lowest element. If you break the array into two at one of these points, including the extremum in the part that contains the second-to-extreme element, there cannot be a valid sub-block crossing this break-point.
By always choosing the extremum that produces a more even split, this should work quite well (average O(n log n)) for "random" arrays. However, I can see problems when your input is something like (1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8), which seems to produce O(n2) behaviour. (1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9) would be similar (I hope you see the pattern). I currently see no trick to catch this kind of worse case, but it seems that it requires other splitting techniques.
This question does involve a bit of a "math trick" but it's fairly straight forward once you get it. However, the rest of my solution won't fit the O(n log n) criteria.
The math portion:
For any two consecutive numbers their sum is 2k+1 where k is the smallest element. For three it is 3k+3, 4 : 4k+6 and for N such numbers it is Nk + sum(1,N-1). Hence, you need two steps which can be done simultaneously:
Create the sum of all the sub-arrays.
Determine the smallest element of a sub-array.
The dynamic programming portion
Build two tables using the results of the previous row's entries to build each successive row's entries. Unfortunately, I'm totally wrong as this would still necessitate n^2 sub-array checks. Ugh!
My proposition
STEP = 2 // amount of examed number
B [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]
B [1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0]
VALID(A,B) - if not valid move one
B [0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0]
VALID(A,B) - if valid move one and step
B [0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0]
VALID (A,B)
B [0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0]
STEP = 3
B [1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0] not ok
B [0,1,1,1,0,0,0,0] ok
B [0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0] not ok
STEP = 4
B [1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0] not ok
B [0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0] ok
.....
CON <- 0
STEP <- 2
i <- 0
j <- 0
WHILE(STEP <= LEN(A)) DO
j <- STEP
WHILE(STEP <= LEN(A) - j) DO
IF(VALID(A,i,j)) DO
CON <- CON + 1
i <- j + 1
j <- j + STEP
ELSE
i <- i + 1
j <- j + 1
END
END
STEP <- STEP + 1
END
The valid method check that all elements are consecutive
Never tested but, might be ok
The original array doesn't contain duplicates so must itself be a consecutive block. Lets call this block (1 ~ n). We can test to see whether block (2 ~ n) is consecutive by checking if the first element is 1 or n which is O(1). Likewise we can test block (1 ~ n-1) by checking whether the last element is 1 or n.
I can't quite mould this into a solution that works but maybe it will help someone along...
Like everybody else, I'm just throwing this out ... it works for the single example below, but YMMV!
The idea is to count the number of illegal sub-blocks, and subtract this from the total possible number. We count the illegal ones by examining each array element in turn and ruling out sub-blocks that include the element but not its predecessor or successor.
Foreach i in [1,N], compute B[A[i]] = i.
Let Count = the total number of sub-blocks with length>1, which is N-choose-2 (one for each possible combination of starting and ending index).
Foreach i, consider A[i]. Ignoring edge cases, let x=A[i]-1, and let y=A[i]+1. A[i] cannot participate in any sub-block that does not include x or y. Let iX=B[x] and iY=B[y]. There are several cases to be treated independently here. The general case is that iX<i<iY<i. In this case, we can eliminate the sub-block A[iX+1 .. iY-1] and all intervening blocks containing i. There are (i - iX + 1) * (iY - i + 1) such sub-blocks, so call this number Eliminated. (Other cases left as an exercise for the reader, as are those edge cases.) Set Count = Count - Eliminated.
Return Count.
The total cost appears to be N * (cost of step 2) = O(N).
WRINKLE: In step 2, we must be careful not to eliminate each sub-interval more than once. We can accomplish this by only eliminating sub-intervals that lie fully or partly to the right of position i.
Example:
A = [1, 3, 2, 4]
B = [1, 3, 2, 4]
Initial count = (4*3)/2 = 6
i=1: A[i]=1, so need sub-blocks with 2 in them. We can eliminate [1,3] from consideration. Eliminated = 1, Count -> 5.
i=2: A[i]=3, so need sub-blocks with 2 or 4 in them. This rules out [1,3] but we already accounted for it when looking right from i=1. Eliminated = 0.
i=3: A[i] = 2, so need sub-blocks with [1] or [3] in them. We can eliminate [2,4] from consideration. Eliminated = 1, Count -> 4.
i=4: A[i] = 4, so we need sub-blocks with [3] in them. This rules out [2,4] but we already accounted for it when looking right from i=3. Eliminated = 0.
Final Count = 4, corresponding to the sub-blocks [1,3,2,4], [1,3,2], [3,2,4] and [3,2].
(This is an attempt to do this N.log(N) worst case. Unfortunately it's wrong -- it sometimes undercounts. It incorrectly assumes you can find all the blocks by looking at only adjacent pairs of smaller valid blocks. In fact you have to look at triplets, quadruples, etc, to get all the larger blocks.)
You do it with a struct that represents a subblock and a queue for subblocks.
struct
c_subblock
{
int index ; /* index into original array, head of subblock */
int width ; /* width of subblock > 0 */
int lo_value;
c_subblock * p_above ; /* null or subblock above with same index */
};
Alloc an array of subblocks the same size as the original array, and init each subblock to have exactly one item in it. Add them to the queue as you go. If you start with array [ 7 3 4 1 2 6 5 8 ] you will end up with a queue like this:
queue: ( [7,7] [3,3] [4,4] [1,1] [2,2] [6,6] [5,5] [8,8] )
The { index, width, lo_value, p_above } values for subbblock [7,7] will be { 0, 1, 7, null }.
Now it's easy. Forgive the c-ish pseudo-code.
loop {
c_subblock * const p_left = Pop subblock from queue.
int const right_index = p_left.index + p_left.width;
if ( right_index < length original array ) {
// Find adjacent subblock on the right.
// To do this you'll need the original array of length-1 subblocks.
c_subblock const * p_right = array_basic_subblocks[ right_index ];
do {
Check the left/right subblocks to see if the two merged are also a subblock.
If they are add a new merged subblock to the end of the queue.
p_right = p_right.p_above;
}
while ( p_right );
}
}
This will find them all I think. It's usually O(N log(N)), but it'll be O(N^2) for a fully sorted or anti-sorted list. I think there's an answer to this though -- when you build the original array of subblocks you look for sorted and anti-sorted sequences and add them as the base-level subblocks. If you are keeping a count increment it by (width * (width + 1))/2 for the base-level. That'll give you the count INCLUDING all the 1-length subblocks.
After that just use the loop above, popping and pushing the queue. If you're counting you'll have to have a multiplier on both the left and right subblocks and multiply these together to calculate the increment. The multiplier is the width of the leftmost (for p_left) or rightmost (for p_right) base-level subblock.
Hope this is clear and not too buggy. I'm just banging it out, so it may even be wrong.
[Later note. This doesn't work after all. See note below.]
I am preparing for a software job interview, and I am having trouble with in-place array modifications.
For example, in the out-shuffle problem you interleave two halves of an array so that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 would become 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8. This question asks for a constant-memory solution (and linear-time, although I'm not sure that's even possible).
First I thought a linear algorithm is trivial, but then I couldn't work it out. Then I did find a simple O(n^2) algorithm but it took me a long time. And I still don't find a faster solution.
I remember also having trouble solving a similar problem from Bentley's Programming Pearls, column 2:
Rotate an array left by i positions (e.g. abcde rotated by 2 becomes cdeab), in time O(n) and with just a couple of bytes extra space.
Does anyone have tips to help wrap my head around such problems?
About an O(n) time, O(1) space algorithm for out-shuffle
Doing an out-shuffle in O(n) time and O(1) space is possible, but it is tough. Not sure why people think it is easy and are suggesting you try something else.
The following paper has an O(n) time and O(1) space solution (though it is for in-shuffle, doing in-shuffle makes out-shuffle trivial):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.1598v1.pdf
About a method to tackle in-place array modification algorithms
In-place modification algorithms could become very hard to handle.
Consider a couple:
Inplace out-shuffle in linear time. Uses number theory.
In-place merge sort, was open for a few years. An algorithm came but was too complicated to be practical. Uses very complicated bookkeeping.
Sorry, if this sounds discouraging, but there is no magic elixir that will solve all in-place algorithm problems for you. You need to work with the problem, figure out its properties, and try to exploit them (as is the case with most algorithms).
That said, for array modifications where the result is a permutation of the original array, you can try the method of following the cycles of the permutation. Basically, any permutation can be written as a disjoint set of cycles (see John's answer too). For instance the permutation:
1 4 2 5 3 6
of 1 2 3 4 5 6 can be written as
1 -> 1
2 -> 3 -> 5 -> 4 -> 2
6 -> 6.
you can read the arrow as 'goes to'.
So to permute the array 1 2 3 4 5 6 you follow the three cycles:
1 goes to 1.
6 goes to 6.
2 goes to 3, 3 goes to 5, 5 goes to 4, and 4 goes to 2.
To follow this long cycle, you can use just one temp variable. Store 3 in it. Put 2 where 3 was. Now put 3 in 5 and store 5 in the temp and so on. Since you only use constant extra temp space to follow a particular cycle, you are doing an in-place modification of the array for that cycle.
Now if I gave you a formula for computing where an element goes to, all you now need is the set of starting elements of each cycle.
A judicious choice of the starting points of the cycles can make the algorithm easy. If you come up with the starting points in O(1) space, you now have a complete in-place algorithm. This is where you might actually have to get familiar with the problem and exploit its properties.
Even if you didn't know how to compute the starting points of the cycles, but had a formula to compute the next element, you could use this method to get an O(n) time in-place algorithm in some special cases.
For instance: if you knew the array of unsigned integers held only positive integers.
You can now follow the cycles, but negate the numbers in them as an indicator of 'visited' elements. Now you can walk the array and pick the first positive number you come across and follow the cycles for that, making the elements of the cycle negative and continue to find untouched elements. In the end, you just make all the elements positive again to get the resulting permutation.
You get an O(n) time and O(1) space algorithm! Of course, we kind of 'cheated' by using the sign bits of the array integers as our personal 'visited' bitmap.
Even if the array was not necessarily integers, this method (of following the cycles, not the hack of sign bits :-)) can actually be used to tackle the two problems you state:
The in-shuffle (or out-shuffle) problem: When 2n+1 is a power of 3, it can be shown (using number theory) that 1,3,3^2, etc are in different cycles and all cycles are covered using those. Combine this with the fact that the in-shuffle is susceptible to divide and conquer, you get an O(n) time, O(1) space algorithm (the formula is i -> 2*i modulo 2n+1). Refer to the above paper for more details.
The cyclic shift an array problem: Cyclic shift an array of size n by k also gives a permutation of the resulting array (given by the formula i goes to i+k modulo n), and can also be solved in linear time and in-place using the following the cycle method. In fact, in terms of the number of element exchanges this following cycle method is better than the 3 reverses algorithm. Of course, following the cycle method can kill the cache because of the access patterns, and in practice, the 3 reverses algorithm might actually fare better.
As for interviews, if the interviewer is a reasonable person, they will be looking at how you think and approach the problem and not whether you actually solve it. So even if you don't solve a problem, I think you should not be discouraged.
The basic strategy with in place algorithms is to figure out the rule for moving a entry from slot N to slot M.
So, your shuffle, for instance. if A and B are cards and N is the number of chards. the rules for the first half of the deck are different than the rules for the second half of the deck
// A is the current location, B is the new location.
// this math assumes that the first card is card 0
if (A < N/2)
B = A * 2;
else
B = (A - N/2) * 2 + 1;
Now we know the rule, we just have to move each card, each time we move a card, we calculate the new location, then remove the card that is currently in B. place A in slot B, then let B be A, and loop back to the top of the algorithm. Each card moved displaces the new card which becomes the next card to be moved.
I think the analysis is easier if we are 0 based rather than 1 based, so
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 // before
0 4 1 5 2 6 3 7 // after
So we want to move 1->2 2->4 4->1 and that completes a cycle
then move 3->6 6->5 5->3 and that completes a cycle
and we are done.
Now we know that card 0 and card N-1 don't move, so we can ignore those,
so we know that we only need to swap N-2 cards in total. The only sticky bit
is that there are 2 cycles, 1,2,4,1 and 3,6,5,3. when we get to card 1 the
second time, we need to move on to card 3.
int A = 1;
int N = 8;
card ary[N]; // Our array of cards
card a = ary[A];
for (int i = 0; i < N/2; ++i)
{
if (A < N/2)
B = A * 2;
else
B = (A - N/2) * 2 + 1;
card b = ary[B];
ary[B] = a;
a = b;
A = B;
if (A == 1)
{
A = 3;
a = ary[A];
}
}
Now this code only works for the 8 card example, because of that if test that moves us from 1 to 3 when we finish the first cycle. What we really need is a general rule to recognize the end of the cycle, and where to go to start the next one.
That rule could be mathematical if you can think of a way, or you could keep track of which places you had visited in a separate array, and when A is back to a visited place, you could then scan forward in your array looking for the first non-visited place.
For your in-place algorithm to be 0(n), the solution will need to be mathematical.
I hope this breakdown of the thinking process is helpful to you. If I was interviewing you, I would expect to see something like this on the whiteboard.
Note: As Moron points out, this doesn't work for all values of N, it's just an example of the sort of analysis that an interviewer is looking for.
Frank,
For programming with loops and arrays, nothing beats David Gries's textbook The Science of Programming. I studied it over 20 years ago, and there are ideas that I still use every day. It is very mathematical and will require real effort to master, but that effort will repay you many times over for your whole career.
Complementing Aryabhatta's answer:
There is a general method to "follow the cycles" even without knowing the starting positions for each cycle or using memory to know visited cycles. This is specially useful if you need O(1) memory.
For each position i in the array, follow the cycle without moving any data yet, until you reach...
the starting position i: end of the cyle. this is a new cycle: follow it again moving the data this time.
a position lower than i: this cycle was already visited, nothing to do with it.
Of course this has a time overhead (O(n^2), I believe) and has the cache problems of the general "following cycles" method.
For the first one, let's assume n is even. You have:
first half: 1 2 3 4
second : 5 6 7 8
Let x1 = first[1], x2 = second[1].
Now, you have to print one from the first half, one from the second, one from the first, one from the second...
Meaning first[1], second[1], first[2], second[2], ...
Obviously, you don't keep two halves in memory, as that will be O(n) memory. You keep pointers to the two halves. Do you see how you'd do that?
The second is a bit harder. Consider:
12345
abcde
..cde
.....ab
..cdeab
cdeab
Do you notice anything? You should notice that the question basically asks you to move the first i characters to the end of your string, without affording the luxury of copying the last n - i in a buffer then appending the first i and then returning the buffer. You need to do with O(1) memory.
To figure how to do this you basically need a lot of practice with these kinds of problems, as with anything else. Practice makes perfect basically. If you've never done these kinds of problems before, it's unlikely you'll figure it out. If you have, then you have to think about how you can manipulate the substrings and or indices such that you solve your problem under the given constraints. The general rule is to work and learn as much as possible so you'll figure out the solutions to these problems very fast when you see them. But the solution differs quite a bit from problem to problem. There's no clear recipe for success I'm afraid. Just read a lot and understand the stuff you read before you move on.
The logic for the second problem is this: what happens if we reverse the substring [1, 2], the substring [3, 5] and then concatenate them and reverse that? We have, in general:
1, 2, 3, 4, ..., i, i + 1, i + 2, ..., N
reverse [1, i] =>
i, i - 1, ..., 4, 3, 2, 1, i + 1, i + 2, ..., N
reverse [i + 1, N] =>
i, i - 1, ..., 4, 3, 2, 1, N, ..., i + 1
reverse [1, N] =>
i + 1, ..., N, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., i - 1, i
which is what you wanted. Writing the reverse function using O(1) memory should be trivial.
Generally speaking, the idea is to loop through the array once, while
storing the value at the position you are at in a temporary variable
finding the correct value for that position and writing it
either move on to the next value, or figure out what to do with your temporary value before continuing.
A general approach could be as follows:
Construct a positions array int[] pos, such that pos[i] refers to the position (index) of a[i] in the shuffled array.
Rearrange the original array int[] a, according to this positions array pos.
/** Shuffle the array a. */
void shuffle(int[] a) {
// Step 1
int [] pos = contructRearrangementArray(a)
// Step 2
rearrange(a, pos);
}
/**
* Rearrange the given array a according to the positions array pos.
*/
private static void rearrange(int[] a, int[] pos)
{
// By definition 'pos' should not contain any duplicates, otherwise rearrange() can run forever.
// Do the above sanity check.
for (int i = 0; i < pos.length; i++) {
while (i != pos[i]) {
// This while loop completes one cycle in the array
swap(a, i, pos[i]);
swap(pos, i, pos[i]);
}
}
}
/** Swap ith element in a with jth element. */
public static void swap(int[] a, int i, int j)
{
int temp = a[i];
a[i] = a[j];
a[j] = temp;
}
As an example, for the case of outShuffle the following would be an implementation of contructRearrangementArray().
/**
* array : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
* pos : 0 2 4 6 1 3 5 7
* outshuffle: 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8 (outer boundaries remain same)
*/
public int[] contructRearrangementArray(int[] a)
{
if (a.length % 2 != 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Cannot outshuffle odd sized array");
}
int[] pos = new int[a.length];
for (int i = 0; i < pos.length; i++) {
pos[i] = i * 2 % (pos.length - 1);
}
pos[a.length - 1] = a.length - 1;
return pos;
}
How would you implement a random number generator that, given an interval, (randomly) generates all numbers in that interval, without any repetition?
It should consume as little time and memory as possible.
Example in a just-invented C#-ruby-ish pseudocode:
interval = new Interval(0,9)
rg = new RandomGenerator(interval);
count = interval.Count // equals 10
count.times.do{
print rg.GetNext() + " "
}
This should output something like :
1 4 3 2 7 5 0 9 8 6
Fill an array with the interval, and then shuffle it.
The standard way to shuffle an array of N elements is to pick a random number between 0 and N-1 (say R), and swap item[R] with item[N]. Then subtract one from N, and repeat until you reach N =1.
This has come up before. Try using a linear feedback shift register.
One suggestion, but it's memory intensive:
The generator builds a list of all numbers in the interval, then shuffles it.
A very efficient way to shuffle an array of numbers where each index is unique comes from image processing and is used when applying techniques like pixel-dissolve.
Basically you start with an ordered 2D array and then shift columns and rows. Those permutations are by the way easy to implement, you can even have one exact method that will yield the resulting value at x,y after n permutations.
The basic technique, described on a 3x3 grid:
1) Start with an ordered list, each number may exist only once
0 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
2) Pick a row/column you want to shuffle, advance it one step. In this case, i am shifting the second row one to the right.
0 1 2
5 3 4
6 7 8
3) Pick a row/column you want to shuffle... I suffle the second column one down.
0 7 2
5 1 4
6 3 8
4) Pick ... For instance, first row, one to the left.
2 0 7
5 1 4
6 3 8
You can repeat those steps as often as you want. You can always do this kind of transformation also on a 1D array. So your result would be now [2, 0, 7, 5, 1, 4, 6, 3, 8].
An occasionally useful alternative to the shuffle approach is to use a subscriptable set container. At each step, choose a random number 0 <= n < count. Extract the nth item from the set.
The main problem is that typical containers can't handle this efficiently. I have used it with bit-vectors, but it only works well if the largest possible member is reasonably small, due to the linear scanning of the bitvector needed to find the nth set bit.
99% of the time, the best approach is to shuffle as others have suggested.
EDIT
I missed the fact that a simple array is a good "set" data structure - don't ask me why, I've used it before. The "trick" is that you don't care whether the items in the array are sorted or not. At each step, you choose one randomly and extract it. To fill the empty slot (without having to shift an average half of your items one step down) you just move the current end item into the empty slot in constant time, then reduce the size of the array by one.
For example...
class remaining_items_queue
{
private:
std::vector<int> m_Items;
public:
...
bool Extract (int &p_Item); // return false if items already exhausted
};
bool remaining_items_queue::Extract (int &p_Item)
{
if (m_Items.size () == 0) return false;
int l_Random = Random_Num (m_Items.size ());
// Random_Num written to give 0 <= result < parameter
p_Item = m_Items [l_Random];
m_Items [l_Random] = m_Items.back ();
m_Items.pop_back ();
}
The trick is to get a random number generator that gives (with a reasonably even distribution) numbers in the range 0 to n-1 where n is potentially different each time. Most standard random generators give a fixed range. Although the following DOESN'T give an even distribution, it is often good enough...
int Random_Num (int p)
{
return (std::rand () % p);
}
std::rand returns random values in the range 0 <= x < RAND_MAX, where RAND_MAX is implementation defined.
Take all numbers in the interval, put them to list/array
Shuffle the list/array
Loop over the list/array
One way is to generate an ordered list (0-9) in your example.
Then use the random function to select an item from the list. Remove the item from the original list and add it to the tail of new one.
The process is finished when the original list is empty.
Output the new list.
You can use a linear congruential generator with parameters chosen randomly but so that it generates the full period. You need to be careful, because the quality of the random numbers may be bad, depending on the parameters.