I had this question in interview which I couldn't answer.
You have to find first unique element(integer) in the array.
For example:
3,2,1,4,4,5,6,6,7,3,2,3
Then unique elements are 1, 5, 7 and first unique of 1.
The Solution required:
O(n) Time Complexity.
O(1) Space Complexity.
I tried saying:
Using Hashmaps, Bitvector...but none of them had space complexity O(1).
Can anyone tell me solution with space O(1)?
Here's a non-rigorous proof that it isn't possible:
It is well known that duplicate detection cannot be better than O(n * log n) when you use O(1) space. Suppose that the current problem is solvable in O(n) time and O(1) memory. If we get the index 'k' of the first non-repeating number as anything other than 0, we know that k-1 is a repeated and hence with one more sweep through the array we can get its duplicate making duplicate detection a O(n) exercise.
Again it is not rigorous and we can get into a worst case analysis where k is always 0. But it helps you think and convince the interviewer that it isn't likely to be possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_distinctness_problem says:
Elements that occur more than n/k times in a multiset of size n may be found in time O(n log k). Here k = n since we want elements that appear more than once.
I think that this is impossible. This isn't a proof, but evidence for a conjecture. My reasoning is as follows...
First, you said that there is no bound on value of the elements (that they can be negative, 0, or positive). Second, there is only O(1) space, so we can't store more than a fixed number of values. Hence, this implies that we would have to solve this using only comparisons. Moreover, we can't sort or otherwise swap values in the array because we would lose the original ordering of unique values (and we can't store the original ordering).
Consider an array where all the integers are unique:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
In order to return the correct output 1 on this array, without reordering the array, we would need to compare each element to all the other elements, to ensure that it is unique, and do this in reverse order, so we can check the first unique element last. This would require O(n^2) comparisons with O(1) space.
I'll delete this answer if anyone finds a solution, and I welcome any pointers on making this into a more rigorous proof.
Note: This can't work in the general case. See the reasoning below.
Original idea
Perhaps there is a solution in O(n) time and O(1) extra space.
It is possible to build a heap in O(n) time. See Building a Heap.
So you built the heap backwards, starting at the last element in the array and making that last position the root. When building the heap, keep track of the most recent item that was not a duplicate.
This assumes that when inserting an item in the heap, you will encounter any identical item that already exist in the heap. I don't know if I can prove that . . .
Assuming the above is true, then when you're done building the heap, you know which item was the first non-duplicated item.
Why it won't work
The algorithm to build a heap in place starts at the midpoint of the array and assumes that all of the nodes beyond that point are leaf nodes. It then works backward (towards item 0), sifting items into the heap. The algorithm doesn't examine the last n/2 items in any particular order, and the order changes as items are sifted into the heap.
As a result, the best we could do (and even then I'm not sure we could do it reliably) is find the first non-duplicated item only if it occurs in the first half of the array.
OP's question original doesn't mention the limit of the number(although latter add number can be negative/positive/zero). Here I assume one more condition:
The number in array are all smaller than array length and
non-negative.
Then, giving a O(n) time, O(1) space solution is possible and seems like a interview question, and the the test case OP gives in the question comply to above assumption.
Solution:
for (int i = 0; i < nums.length; i++) {
if (nums[i] != i) {
if (nums[i] == -1) continue;
if (nums[nums[i]] == nums[i]) {
nums[nums[i]] = -1;
} else {
swap(nums, nums[i], i);
i--;
}
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < nums.length; i++) {
if (nums[i] == i) {
return i;
}
}
The algorithm here is considering the original array as bucket in bucket sort. Put numbers into its bucket, if more than twice, mark it as -1. Using another loop to find the first number that has nums[i] == i
Related
Below is my algorithm that's a simplified take on Dijkstra's 3-way partition algorithm for a generic list:
static <T extends Comparable> void dutchSort(List<T> list, int left, int right) {
if (left >= right) return;
T pivot = list.get(left);
// smaller - index of the last element smaller than pivot value
// equal - index of the last element equal to pivot value
// larger - index of the first element larger than pivot value
int smaller = left-1, equal = left, larger = right;
// before sorting is completed, 'equal' is the current value
// much like 'i' in a for-loop
// O(N) time
while (equal < larger) {
if (list.get(equal).compareTo(pivot) < 0)
Collections.swap(list, equal, ++smaller);
else if (list.get(equal).equals(pivot))
equal++;
else
Collections.swap(list, equal, --larger);
}
// recursively sort smaller subarray
dutchSort(list, left, smaller+1);
// recursively sort larger subarray
dutchSort(list, equal, list.size());
}
This is O(1) space, and I think it's O(N^N) time, but I'm not sure. Toptal's post on 3-way QuickSort says it's O(N^2), but the difference is my algorithm is much more naive. My thought process is: the while loop takes O(N) time and in the worst case (all N elements are distinct?) the problem is broken down into N subarrays of size 1.
I tried the Master Theorem, but I was not sure about any of the variable values. I think the number of subproblems is 2, each recursive call reduces the problem by a factor of 2, and merging the subproblems takes O(1) work.
All this is just educated guessing and I'm likely pretty off, so I'd really like to rigorously solve the time complexity.
Is O(N^N) time correct? And if so, why?
Thanks so much :)
So the while loop is O(n) on the initial call. If we assume an array of [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], then the first time through the loop list[equal] == pivot, and we increment equal.
The second and subsequent times through the loop, list[equal] > pivot, so we decrement larger and swap with that element. When the loop is finished, you have equal=1, and smaller hasn't changed. Your recursive calls become:
dutchSort(list, 0, 0)
dutchSort(list, 1, n)
So one of the items has dropped off.
Do the same mental exercise a for a few more recursion depths, and I think you'll get an idea of how the partitioning works.
For your algorithm to be O(N^N), it would have to compare every element against every other element multiple times. But that doesn't happen because at each level of recursion you're splitting the problem into two parts. Once something is split into the left half of the array, it can't ever be compared with something that was moved into the right half of the array. So the worst case is that every element is compared against every other element. That would be O(N^2).
When all elements are equal, the algorithm is O(N).
I think the algorithm's complexity is determined by the number of unique items. It doesn't appear that initial array order will have any effect.
I have a very big sorted array. How can I count or print all the unique elements of an array??
Suppose my array is [2,3,3,3,4,6,6,7]
then output should be 2,3,4,6,7
I know to do it in a n(complexity) time. But interviewer asked me to do this in log n time??
Is it possible?
Here is an algorithm which requires O(logn*k) where k is unique elements:-
set uniQ
int ind = 0;
do {
uniQ.add(arr[i]);
ind = BinSearchGreater(arr,arr[ind],ind+1);
if(ind >= arr.length)
break;
} while(true);
BinSearchGreater(arr,key,start_ind) : returns index of first element greater than key in subarray starting at start_ind
Time complexity :-
Note this algorithm is only good when no of unique elements are small.
This is asymptotically O(n*logn) if all are unique so worse than linear.
I would like to know how he (the interviewer) counts every unique element in the array [1,2,3,4,5] without picking at least every element. In this case you have to pick every element to count every element and this will be done in O(n). In my opinion impossible to get a complexity of O(log n), if there are no other requirements to the given array.
Yet another interview question asked me to find the maximum possible subarray of repeated values given a sorted array in shortest computational time possible.
Let input array be A[1 ... n]
Find an array B of consecutive integers in A such that:
for x in range(len(B)-1):
B[x] == B[x+1]
I believe that the best algorithm is dividing the array in half and going from the middle outwards and comparing from the middle the integers with one another and finding the longest strain of the same integers from the middle. Then I would call the method recursively by dividing the array in half and calling the method on the two halves.
My interviewer said my algorithm is good but my analysis that the algorithm is O(logn) is incorrect but never got around to telling me what the correct answer is. My first question is what is the Big-O analysis of this algorithm? (Show as much work as possible please! Big-O is not my forte.) And my second question is purely for my curiosity whether there is an even more time efficient algorithm?
The best you can do for this problem is an O(n) solution, so your algorithm cannot possibly be both correct and O(lg n).
Consider for example, the case where the array contains no repeated elements. To determine this, one needs to examine every element, and examining every element is O(n).
This is a simple algorithm that will find the longest subsequence of a repeated element:
start = end = 0
maxLength = 0
i = 0
while i + maxLength < a.length:
if a[i] == a[i + maxLength]:
while i + maxLength < a.length and a[i] == a[i + maxLength]:
maxLength += 1
start = i
end = i + maxLength
i += maxLength
return a[start:end]
If you have reason to believe the subsequence will be long, you can set the initial value of maxLength to some heuristically selected value to speed things along, and then only look for shorter sequences if you don't find one (i.e. you end up with end == 0 after the first pass.)
I think we all agree that in the worst case scenario, where all of A is unique or where all of A is the same, you have to examine every element in the array to either determine there are no duplicates or determine all the array contains one number. Like the other posters have said, that's going to be O(N). I'm not sure divide & conquer helps you much with algorithmic complexity on this one, though you may be able to simplify the code a bit by using recursion. Divide & conquer really helps cut down on Big O when you can throw away large portions of the input (e.g. Binary Search), but in the case where you potentially have to examine all the input, it's not going to be much different.
I'm assuming the result here is you're just returning the size of the largest B you've found, though you could easily modify this to return B instead.
So on the algorithm front, given that A is sorted, I'm not sure there's going to be any answer faster/simpler answer than just walking through the array in order. It seems like the simplest answer is to have 2 pointers, one starting at index 0 and one starting at index 1. Compare them and then increment them both; each time they're the same you tick a counter upward to give you the current size of B and when they differ you reset that counter to zero. You also keep around a variable for the max size of a B you've found so far and update it every time you find a bigger B.
In this algorithm, n elements are visited with a constant number of calculations per each visited element, so the running time is O(n).
Given sorted array A[1..n]:
max_start = max_end = 1
max_length = 1
start = end = 1
while start < n
while A[start] == A[end] && end < n
end++
if end - start > max_length
max_start = start
max_end = end - 1
max_length = end - start
start = end
Assuming that the longest consecutive integers is only of length 1, you'll be scanning through the entire array A of n items. Thus, the complexity is not in terms of n, but in terms of len(B).
Not sure if the complexity is O(n/len(B)).
Checking the 2 edge case
- When n == len(B), you get instant result (only checking A[0] and A[n-1]
- When n == 1, you get O(n), checking all elements
- When normal case, I'm too lazy to write the algo to analyze...
Edit
Given that len(B) is not known in advance, we must take the worst case, i.e. O(n)
Given an array. How can we find sum of elements in index interval (i, j) in constant time. You are allowed to use extra space.
Example:
A: 3 2 4 7 1 -2 8 0 -4 2 1 5 6 -1
length = 14
int getsum(int* arr, int i, int j, int len);
// suppose int array "arr" is initialized here
int sum = getsum(arr, 2, 5, 14);
sum should be 10 in constant time.
If you can spend O(n) time to "prepare" the auxiliary information, based on which you would be able calculate sums in O(1), you could easily do it.
Preparation (O(n)):
aux[0] = 0;
foreach i in (1..LENGTH) {
aux[i] = aux[i-1] + arr[i];
}
Query (O(1)), arr is numerated from 1 to LENGTH:
sum(i,j) = aux[j] - aux[i-1];
I think it was the intent, because, otherwise, it's impossible: for any length to calculate sum(0,length-1) you should have scanned the whole array; this takes linear time, at least.
It cannot be done in constant time unless you store the information.
You would have to do something like specially modify the array to store, for each index, the sum of all values between the start of the array and this index, then using subtraction on the range to get the difference in sums.
However, nothing in your code sample seems to allow this. The array is created by the user (and can change at any time) and you have no control over it.
Any algorithm that needs to scan a group of elements in a sequential unsorted list will be O(n).
Previous answers are absolutely fine for the question asked. I am just adding a point, if this question is changed a bit like:
Find the sum of the interval, if the array gets changed dynamically.
If array elements get changed, then we have to recompute whatever sum we have stored in the auxiliary array as mentioned in #Pavel Shved's approach.
Recomputing is O(n) operation and hence we need to reduce the complexity down to O(nlogn) by making use of Segment Tree.
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/segment-tree-set-1-sum-of-given-range/
There are three known algorithms for range based queries given [l,r]
1.Segment tree: total query time O(NlogN)
2.Fenwick tree: total query time O(NlogN)
3.Mo's algorithm(square root decomposition)
The first two algorithms can deal with modifications in the list/array given to you. The third algorithm or Mo's algorithm is an offline algorithm means all the queries need to be given to you prior. Modifications in the list/array are not allowed in this algorithm. For implementation, runtime and further reading of this algorithm you can check out this Medium blog. It explains with code. And a very few people actually know about this method.
this question will solve O(n^2)time,O(n)space or O(n)time,O(n)space..
Now the best optimal solution in this case (i.e O(n)time,O(n))
suppose a[]={1,3,5,2,6,4,9} is given
if we create an array(sum[]) in which we kept the value of sum of 0 index to that particular index.like for array a[],sum array will be sum[]={1,4,9,11,17,21,30};like
{1,3+1,3+1+5......} this takes O(n)time and O(n) space..
when we give index then it directly fetch from sum array it means add(i,j)=sum[j]-sum[i-1]; and this takes O(1) times and O(1) spaces...
so,this program takes O(n) time and O(N) spaces..
int sum[]=new int[l];
sum[0]=a[0];
System.out.print(cumsum[0]+" ");
for(int i=1;i<l;i++)
{
sum[i]=sum[i-1]+a[i];
System.out.print(sum[i]+" ");
}
?* this gives 1,4,9,11,17,21,30 and take O(n)time and O(n) spaces */
sum(i,j)=sum[j]-sum[i-1]/this gives sum of indexes from i to j and take O(1)time and O(1) spaces/
so,this program takes O(n) time and O(N) spaces..emphasized text
I came across an interesting algorithm question in an interview. I gave my answer but not sure whether there is any better idea. So I welcome everyone to write something about his/her ideas.
You have an empty set. Now elements are put into the set one by one. We assume all the elements are integers and they are distinct (according to the definition of set, we don't consider two elements with the same value).
Every time a new element is added to the set, the set's median value is asked. The median value is defined the same as in math: the middle element in a sorted list. Here, specially, when the size of set is even, assuming size of set = 2*x, the median element is the x-th element of the set.
An example:
Start with an empty set,
when 12 is added, the median is 12,
when 7 is added, the median is 7,
when 8 is added, the median is 8,
when 11 is added, the median is 8,
when 5 is added, the median is 8,
when 16 is added, the median is 8,
...
Notice that, first, elements are added to set one by one and second, we don't know the elements going to be added.
My answer.
Since it is a question about finding median, sorting is needed. The easiest solution is to use a normal array and keep the array sorted. When a new element comes, use binary search to find the position for the element (log_n) and add the element to the array. Since it is a normal array so shifting the rest of the array is needed, whose time complexity is n. When the element is inserted, we can immediately get the median, using instance time.
The WORST time complexity is: log_n + n + 1.
Another solution is to use link list. The reason for using link list is to remove the need of shifting the array. But finding the location of the new element requires a linear search. Adding the element takes instant time and then we need to find the median by going through half of the array, which always takes n/2 time.
The WORST time complexity is: n + 1 + n/2.
The third solution is to use a binary search tree. Using a tree, we avoid shifting array. But using the binary search tree to find the median is not very attractive. So I change the binary search tree in a way that it is always the case that the left subtree and the right subtree are balanced. This means that at any time, either the left subtree and the right subtree have the same number of nodes or the right subtree has one node more than in the left subtree. In other words, it is ensured that at any time, the root element is the median. Of course this requires changes in the way the tree is built. The technical detail is similar to rotating a red-black tree.
If the tree is maintained properly, it is ensured that the WORST time complexity is O(n).
So the three algorithms are all linear to the size of the set. If no sub-linear algorithm exists, the three algorithms can be thought as the optimal solutions. Since they don't differ from each other much, the best is the easiest to implement, which is the second one, using link list.
So what I really wonder is, will there be a sub-linear algorithm for this problem and if so what will it be like. Any ideas guys?
Steve.
Your complexity analysis is confusing. Let's say that n items total are added; we want to output the stream of n medians (where the ith in the stream is the median of the first i items) efficiently.
I believe this can be done in O(n*lg n) time using two priority queues (e.g. binary or fibonacci heap); one queue for the items below the current median (so the largest element is at the top), and the other for items above it (in this heap, the smallest is at the bottom). Note that in fibonacci (and other) heaps, insertion is O(1) amortized; it's only popping an element that's O(lg n).
This would be called an "online median selection" algorithm, although Wikipedia only talks about online min/max selection. Here's an approximate algorithm, and a lower bound on deterministic and approximate online median selection (a lower bound means no faster algorithm is possible!)
If there are a small number of possible values compared to n, you can probably break the comparison-based lower bound just like you can for sorting.
I received the same interview question and came up with the two-heap solution in wrang-wrang's post. As he says, the time per operation is O(log n) worst-case. The expected time is also O(log n) because you have to "pop an element" 1/4 of the time assuming random inputs.
I subsequently thought about it further and figured out how to get constant expected time; indeed, the expected number of comparisons per element becomes 2+o(1). You can see my writeup at http://denenberg.com/omf.pdf .
BTW, the solutions discussed here all require space O(n), since you must save all the elements. A completely different approach, requiring only O(log n) space, gives you an approximation to the median (not the exact median). Sorry I can't post a link (I'm limited to one link per post) but my paper has pointers.
Although wrang-wrang already answered, I wish to describe a modification of your binary search tree method that is sub-linear.
We use a binary search tree that is balanced (AVL/Red-Black/etc), but not super-balanced like you described. So adding an item is O(log n)
One modification to the tree: for every node we also store the number of nodes in its subtree. This doesn't change the complexity. (For a leaf this count would be 1, for a node with two leaf children this would be 3, etc)
We can now access the Kth smallest element in O(log n) using these counts:
def get_kth_item(subtree, k):
left_size = 0 if subtree.left is None else subtree.left.size
if k < left_size:
return get_kth_item(subtree.left, k)
elif k == left_size:
return subtree.value
else: # k > left_size
return get_kth_item(subtree.right, k-1-left_size)
A median is a special case of Kth smallest element (given that you know the size of the set).
So all in all this is another O(log n) solution.
We can difine a min and max heap to store numbers. Additionally, we define a class DynamicArray for the number set, with two functions: Insert and Getmedian. Time to insert a new number is O(lgn), while time to get median is O(1).
This solution is implemented in C++ as the following:
template<typename T> class DynamicArray
{
public:
void Insert(T num)
{
if(((minHeap.size() + maxHeap.size()) & 1) == 0)
{
if(maxHeap.size() > 0 && num < maxHeap[0])
{
maxHeap.push_back(num);
push_heap(maxHeap.begin(), maxHeap.end(), less<T>());
num = maxHeap[0];
pop_heap(maxHeap.begin(), maxHeap.end(), less<T>());
maxHeap.pop_back();
}
minHeap.push_back(num);
push_heap(minHeap.begin(), minHeap.end(), greater<T>());
}
else
{
if(minHeap.size() > 0 && minHeap[0] < num)
{
minHeap.push_back(num);
push_heap(minHeap.begin(), minHeap.end(), greater<T>());
num = minHeap[0];
pop_heap(minHeap.begin(), minHeap.end(), greater<T>());
minHeap.pop_back();
}
maxHeap.push_back(num);
push_heap(maxHeap.begin(), maxHeap.end(), less<T>());
}
}
int GetMedian()
{
int size = minHeap.size() + maxHeap.size();
if(size == 0)
throw exception("No numbers are available");
T median = 0;
if(size & 1 == 1)
median = minHeap[0];
else
median = (minHeap[0] + maxHeap[0]) / 2;
return median;
}
private:
vector<T> minHeap;
vector<T> maxHeap;
};
For more detailed analysis, please refer to my blog: http://codercareer.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-30-median-in-stream.html.
1) As with the previous suggestions, keep two heaps and cache their respective sizes. The left heap keeps values below the median, the right heap keeps values above the median. If you simply negate the values in the right heap the smallest value will be at the root so there is no need to create a special data structure.
2) When you add a new number, you determine the new median from the size of your two heaps, the current median, and the two roots of the L&R heaps, which just takes constant time.
3) Call a private threaded method to perform the actual work to perform the insert and update, but return immediately with the new median value. You only need to block until the heap roots are updated. Then, the thread doing the insert just needs to maintain a lock on the traversing grandparent node as it traverses the tree; this will ensue that you can insert and rebalance without blocking other inserting threads working on other sub-branches.
Getting the median becomes a constant time procedure, of course now you may have to wait on synchronization from further adds.
Rob
A balanced tree (e.g. R/B tree) with augmented size field should find the median in lg(n) time in the worst case. I think it is in Chapter 14 of the classic Algorithm text book.
To keep the explanation brief, you can efficiently augment a BST to select a key of a specified rank in O(h) by having each node store the number of nodes in its left subtree. If you can guarantee that the tree is balanced, you can reduce this to O(log(n)). Consider using an AVL which is height-balanced (or red-black tree which is roughly balanced), then you can select any key in O(log(n)). When you insert or delete a node into the AVL you can increment or decrement a variable that keeps track of the total number of nodes in the tree to determine the rank of the median which you can then select in O(log(n)).
In order to find the median in linear time you can try this (it just came to my mind). You need to store some values every time you add number to your set, and you won't need sorting. Here it goes.
typedef struct
{
int number;
int lesser;
int greater;
} record;
int median(record numbers[], int count, int n)
{
int i;
int m = VERY_BIG_NUMBER;
int a, b;
numbers[count + 1].number = n:
for (i = 0; i < count + 1; i++)
{
if (n < numbers[i].number)
{
numbers[i].lesser++;
numbers[count + 1].greater++;
}
else
{
numbers[i].greater++;
numbers[count + 1].lesser++;
}
if (numbers[i].greater - numbers[i].lesser == 0)
m = numbers[i].number;
}
if (m == VERY_BIG_NUMBER)
for (i = 0; i < count + 1; i++)
{
if (numbers[i].greater - numbers[i].lesser == -1)
a = numbers[i].number;
if (numbers[i].greater - numbers[i].lesser == 1)
b = numbers[i].number;
m = (a + b) / 2;
}
return m;
}
What this does is, each time you add a number to the set, you must now how many "lesser than your number" numbers have, and how many "greater than your number" numbers have. So, if you have a number with the same "lesser than" and "greater than" it means your number is in the very middle of the set, without having to sort it. In the case that you have an even amount of numbers you may have two choices for a median, so you just return the mean of those two. BTW, this is C code, I hope this helps.