Related
I have the following set of integers {2,9,4,1,8}. I need to divide this set into two subsets so that the sum of the sets results in 14 and 10 respectively. In my example the answer is {2,4,8} and {9,1}. I am not looking for any code. I am pretty sure there must be a standard algorithm to solve this problem. Since i was not successful in googling and finding out that myself, i posted my query here. So what will be the best way to approach this problem?
My try was like this...
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] input = {2, 9, 4, 1, 8};
int target = 14;
Stack<Integer> stack = new Stack<>();
for (int i = 0; i < input.length; i++) {
stack.add(input[i]);
for (int j = i+1;j<input.length;j++) {
int sum = sumInStack(stack);
if (sum < target) {
stack.add(input[j]);
continue;
}
if (target == sum) {
System.out.println("Eureka");
}
stack.remove(input[i]);
}
}
}
private static int sumInStack(Stack<Integer> stack) {
int sum = 0;
for (Integer integer : stack) {
sum+=integer;
}
return sum;
}
}
I know this approach is not even close to solve the problem
I need to divide this set into two subsets so that the sum of the sets results in 14 and 10 respectively.
If the subsets have to sum to certain values, then it had better be true that the sum of the entire set is the sum of those values, i.e. 14+10=24 in your example. If you only have to find the two subsets, then the problem isn't very difficult — find any subset that sums to one of those values, and the remaining elements of the set must sum to the other value.
For the example set you gave, {2,9,4,1,8}, you said that the answer is {9,1}, {2,4,8}, but notice that that's not the only answer; there's also {2,8}, {9,4,1}.
I recently stumbled upon an interesting problem, an I am wondering if my solution is optimal.
You are given an array of zeros and ones. The goal is to return the
amount zeros and the amount of ones in the most expensive sub-array.
The cost of an array is the amount of 1s divided by amount of 0s. In
case there are no zeros in the sub-array, the cost is zero.
At first I tried brute-forcing, but for an array of 10,000 elements it was far too slow and I ran out of memory.
My second idea was instead of creating those sub-arrays, to remember the start and the end of the sub-array. That way I saved a lot of memory, but the complexity was still O(n2).
My final solution that I came up is I think O(n). It goes like this:
Start at the beginning of the array, for each element, calculate the cost of the sub-arrays starting from 1, ending at the current index. So we would start with a sub-array consisting of the first element, then first and second etc. Since the only thing that we need to calculate the cost, is the amount of 1s and 0s in the sub-array, I could find the optimal end of the sub-array.
The second step was to start from the end of the sub-array from step one, and repeat the same to find the optimal beginning. That way I am sure that there is no better combination in the whole array.
Is this solution correct? If not, is there a counter-example that will show that this solution is incorrect?
Edit
For clarity:
Let's say our input array is 0101.
There are 10 subarrays:
0,1,0,1,01,10,01,010,101 and 0101.
The cost of the most expensive subarray would be 2 since 101 is the most expensive subarray. So the algorithm should return 1,2
Edit 2
There is one more thing that I forgot, if 2 sub-arrays have the same cost, the longer one is "more expensive".
Let me sketch a proof for my assumption:
(a = whole array, *=zero or more, +=one or more, {n}=exactly n)
Cases a=0* and a=1+ : c=0
Cases a=01+ and a=1+0 : conforms to 1*0{1,2}1*, a is optimum
For the normal case, a contains one or more 0s and 1s.
This means there is some optimum sub-array of non-zero cost.
(S) Assume s is an optimum sub-array of a.
It contains one or more zeros. (Otherwise its cost would be zero).
(T) Let t be the longest `1*0{1,2}+1*` sequence within s
(and among the equally long the one with with most 1s).
(Note: There is always one such, e.g. `10` or `01`.)
Let N be the number of 1s in t.
Now, we prove that always t = s.
By showing it is not possible to add adjacent parts of s to t if (S).
(E) Assume t shorter than s.
We cannot add 1s at either side, otherwise not (T).
For each 0 we add from s, we have to add at least N more 1s
later to get at least the same cost as our `1*0+1*`.
This means: We have to add at least one run of N 1s.
If we add some run of N+1, N+2 ... somewhere than not (T).
If we add consecutive zeros, we need to compensate
with longer runs of 1s, thus not (T).
This leaves us with the only option of adding single zeors and runs of N 1s each.
This would give (symmetry) `1{n}*0{1,2}1{m}01{n+m}...`
If m>0 then `1{m}01{n+m}` is longer than `1{n}0{1,2}1{m}`, thus not (T).
If m=0 then we get `1{n}001{n}`, thus not (T).
So assumption (E) must be wrong.
Conclusion: The optimum sub-array must conform to 1*0{1,2}1*.
Here is my O(n) impl in Java according to the assumption in my last comment (1*01* or 1*001*):
public class Q19596345 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
String array = "0101001110111100111111001111110";
System.out.println("array=" + array);
SubArray current = new SubArray();
current.array = array;
SubArray best = (SubArray) current.clone();
for (int i = 0; i < array.length(); i++) {
current.accept(array.charAt(i));
SubArray candidate = (SubArray) current.clone();
candidate.trim();
if (candidate.cost() > best.cost()) {
best = candidate;
System.out.println("better: " + candidate);
}
}
System.out.println("best: " + best);
} catch (Exception ex) { ex.printStackTrace(System.err); }
}
static class SubArray implements Cloneable {
String array;
int start, leftOnes, zeros, rightOnes;
// optimize 1*0*1* by cutting
void trim() {
if (zeros > 1) {
if (leftOnes < rightOnes) {
start += leftOnes + (zeros - 1);
leftOnes = 0;
zeros = 1;
} else if (leftOnes > rightOnes) {
zeros = 1;
rightOnes = 0;
}
}
}
double cost() {
if (zeros == 0) return 0;
else return (leftOnes + rightOnes) / (double) zeros +
(leftOnes + zeros + rightOnes) * 0.00001;
}
void accept(char c) {
if (c == '1') {
if (zeros == 0) leftOnes++;
else rightOnes++;
} else {
if (rightOnes > 0) {
start += leftOnes + zeros;
leftOnes = rightOnes;
zeros = 0;
rightOnes = 0;
}
zeros++;
}
}
public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException { return super.clone(); }
public String toString() { return String.format("%s at %d with cost %.3f with zeros,ones=%d,%d",
array.substring(start, start + leftOnes + zeros + rightOnes), start, cost(), zeros, leftOnes + rightOnes);
}
}
}
If we can show the max array is always 1+0+1+, 1+0, or 01+ (Regular expression notation then we can calculate the number of runs
So for the array (010011), we have (always starting with a run of 1s)
0,1,1,2,2
so the ratios are (0, 1, 0.3, 1.5, 1), which leads to an array of 10011 as the final result, ignoring the one runs
Cost of the left edge is 0
Cost of the right edge is 2
So in this case, the right edge is the correct answer -- 011
I haven't yet been able to come up with a counterexample, but the proof isn't obvious either. Hopefully we can crowd source one :)
The degenerate cases are simpler
All 1's and 0's are obvious, as they all have the same cost.
A string of just 1+,0+ or vice versa is all the 1's and a single 0.
How about this? As a C# programmer, I am thinking we can use something like Dictionary of <int,int,int>.
The first int would be use as key, second as subarray number and the third would be for the elements of sub-array.
For your example
key|Sub-array number|elements
1|1|0
2|2|1
3|3|0
4|4|1
5|5|0
6|5|1
7|6|1
8|6|0
9|7|0
10|7|1
11|8|0
12|8|1
13|8|0
14|9|1
15|9|0
16|9|1
17|10|0
18|10|1
19|10|0
20|10|1
Then you can run through the dictionary and store the highest in a variable.
var maxcost=0
var arrnumber=1;
var zeros=0;
var ones=0;
var cost=0;
for (var i=1;i++;i<=20+1)
{
if ( dictionary.arraynumber[i]!=dictionary.arraynumber[i-1])
{
zeros=0;
ones=0;
cost=0;
if (cost>maxcost)
{
maxcost=cost;
}
}
else
{
if (dictionary.values[i]==0)
{
zeros++;
}
else
{
ones++;
}
cost=ones/zeros;
}
}
This will be log(n^2), i hope and u just need 3n size of memory of the array?
I think we can modify the maximal subarray problem to fit to this question. Here's my attempt at it:
void FindMaxRatio(int[] array, out maxNumOnes, out maxNumZeros)
{
maxNumOnes = 0;
maxNumZeros = 0;
int numOnes = 0;
int numZeros = 0;
double maxSoFar = 0;
double maxEndingHere = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < array.Size; i++){
if(array[i] == 0) numZeros++;
if(array[i] == 1) numOnes++;
if(numZeros == 0) maxEndingHere = 0;
else maxEndingHere = numOnes/(double)numZeros;
if(maxEndingHere < 1 && maxEndingHere > 0) {
numZeros = 0;
numOnes = 0;
}
if(maxSoFar < maxEndingHere){
maxSoFar = maxEndingHere;
maxNumOnes = numOnes;
maxNumZeros = numZeros;
}
}
}
I think the key is if the ratio is less then 1, we can disregard that subsequence because
there will always be a subsequence 01 or 10 whose ratio is 1. This seemed to work for 010011.
There is an array (greater than 1000 elements space) with 1000 large numbers (can be 64 bit numbers as well). The numbers in the array may not be necessarily sorted.
We have to generate a unique number at 1001th position that is different from the previous 1000.
Justify the approach used is the best.
My answer (don't know to what extent this was correct):
Sort the numbers, and start from the 0 position. The number that is at 1000th position + 1 is the required number.
Better suggestions for this?
Create an auxiliary array of 1001 elements. Set all these to 1 (or true or Y or whatever you choose). Run through the main array, if you find a number in the range 1..1000 then 0 out (or falsify some other how) the corresponding element in the auxiliary array. At the end the first element in the auxiliary array which is not 0 (or false) corresponds to a number which is not in the main array.
This is simple, and, I think, O(n) in time complexity, where n is the number of elements in the main array.
unsigned ii,slot;
unsigned array [ NNN ];
/* allocate a histogram */
#define XXX (NNN+1);
unsigned histogram [XXX];
memset(histogram, 0, sizeof histogram);
for (ii=0; ii < NNN; ii++) {
slot = array [ii ] % XXX;
histogram[slot] += 1;
}
for (slot=0; slot < NNN; slot++) {
if ( !histogram[slot]) break;
}
/* Now, slot + k * XXX will be a
** number that does not occur in the original array */
Note: this is similar to High performance Mark, but at least I typed in the code ...
If you sort your array, you have three possibilities for a unique number:
array[999]+1, if array[999] is not equal to INT_MAX
array[0]-1, if array[0] is not equal to INT_MIN
a number between array[i] and array[i+1], if array[i+1]-array[i]>1 (0<=i<=998). Notice that if the two previous tries have failed, then it is guaranteed that there is a number between two elements in your array.
Notice that this solution will also work for the 1002th, 1003th, and so on.
An attempt at a clumsy c# implementation
public class Test
{
public List<int> Sequence { get; set; }
public void GenerateFirstSequence()
{
Sequence = new List<int>();
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
var x = new Random().Next(0, int.MaxValue);
while (Sequence.Contains(x))
{
x = new Random().Next(0, int.MaxValue);
}
Sequence.Add(x);
}
}
public int GetNumberNotInSequence()
{
var number = Sequence.OrderBy(x => x).Max();
var mustRedefine = number == int.MaxValue && Sequence.Contains(number);
if (mustRedefine)
{
while (Sequence.Contains(number))
{
number = number - 1;
if (!Sequence.Contains(number))
return number;
}
}
return number + 1;
}
}
I have some thoughts on this problem:
You could create a hash table H, which contain 1000 elements. Suppose your array named A, and for each element, we have the reminder by 1000: m[i] = A[i] % 1000.
If there is a conflict between A[i] and A[j], that A[i] % 1000 = A[j] % 1000. That is to say, there must exist an index k, that no element's reminder by 1000 equals to k, then k is the number you are going to get.
If there is no conflict at all, just pick H[1] + 1000 as your result.
The complexity of this algorithm is O(l), in which l indicates the original list size, in the example, l = 1000
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 12 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
You are given as input an unsorted array of n distinct numbers, where n is a power of 2. Give an algorithm that identifies the second-largest number in the array, and that uses at most n+log₂(n)−2 comparisons.
Start with comparing elements of the n element array in odd and even positions and determining largest element of each pair. This step requires n/2 comparisons. Now you've got only n/2 elements. Continue pairwise comparisons to get n/4, n/8, ... elements. Stop when the largest element is found. This step requires a total of n/2 + n/4 + n/8 + ... + 1 = n-1 comparisons.
During previous step, the largest element was immediately compared with log₂(n) other elements. You can determine the largest of these elements in log₂(n)-1 comparisons. That would be the second-largest number in the array.
Example: array of 8 numbers [10,9,5,4,11,100,120,110].
Comparisons on level 1: [10,9] ->10 [5,4]-> 5, [11,100]->100 , [120,110]-->120.
Comparisons on level 2: [10,5] ->10 [100,120]->120.
Comparisons on level 3: [10,120]->120.
Maximum is 120. It was immediately compared with: 10 (on level 3), 100 (on level 2), 110 (on level 1).
Step 2 should find the maximum of 10, 100, and 110. Which is 110. That's the second largest element.
sly s's answer is derived from this paper, but he didn't explain the algorithm, which means someone stumbling across this question has to read the whole paper, and his code isn't very sleek as well. I'll give the crux of the algorithm from the aforementioned paper, complete with complexity analysis, and also provide a Scala implementation, just because that's the language I chose while working on these problems.
Basically, we do two passes:
Find the max, and keep track of which elements the max was compared to.
Find the max among the elements the max was compared to; the result is the second largest element.
In the picture above, 12 is the largest number in the array, and was compared to 3, 1, 11, and 10 in the first pass. In the second pass, we find the largest among {3, 1, 11, 10}, which is 11, which is the second largest number in the original array.
Time Complexity:
All elements must be looked at, therefore, n - 1 comparisons for pass 1.
Since we divide the problem into two halves each time, there are at most log₂n recursive calls, for each of which, the comparisons sequence grows by at most one; the size of the comparisons sequence is thus at most log₂n, therefore, log₂n - 1 comparisons for pass 2.
Total number of comparisons <= (n - 1) + (log₂n - 1) = n + log₂n - 2
def second_largest(nums: Sequence[int]) -> int:
def _max(lo: int, hi: int, seq: Sequence[int]) -> Tuple[int, MutableSequence[int]]:
if lo >= hi:
return seq[lo], []
mid = lo + (hi - lo) // 2
x, a = _max(lo, mid, seq)
y, b = _max(mid + 1, hi, seq)
if x > y:
a.append(y)
return x, a
b.append(x)
return y, b
comparisons = _max(0, len(nums) - 1, nums)[1]
return _max(0, len(comparisons) - 1, comparisons)[0]
The first run for the given example is as follows:
lo=0, hi=1, mid=0, x=10, a=[], y=4, b=[]
lo=0, hi=2, mid=1, x=10, a=[4], y=5, b=[]
lo=3, hi=4, mid=3, x=8, a=[], y=7, b=[]
lo=3, hi=5, mid=4, x=8, a=[7], y=2, b=[]
lo=0, hi=5, mid=2, x=10, a=[4, 5], y=8, b=[7, 2]
lo=6, hi=7, mid=6, x=12, a=[], y=3, b=[]
lo=6, hi=8, mid=7, x=12, a=[3], y=1, b=[]
lo=9, hi=10, mid=9, x=6, a=[], y=9, b=[]
lo=9, hi=11, mid=10, x=9, a=[6], y=11, b=[]
lo=6, hi=11, mid=8, x=12, a=[3, 1], y=11, b=[9]
lo=0, hi=11, mid=5, x=10, a=[4, 5, 8], y=12, b=[3, 1, 11]
Things to note:
There are exactly n - 1=11 comparisons for n=12.
From the last line, y=12 wins over x=10, and the next pass starts with the sequence [3, 1, 11, 10], which has log₂(12)=3.58 ~ 4 elements, and will require 3 comparisons to find the maximum.
I have implemented this algorithm in Java answered by #Evgeny Kluev. The total comparisons are n+log2(n)−2. There is also a good reference:
Alexander Dekhtyar: CSC 349: Design and Analyis of Algorithms. This is similar to the top voted algorithm.
public class op1 {
private static int findSecondRecursive(int n, int[] A){
int[] firstCompared = findMaxTournament(0, n-1, A); //n-1 comparisons;
int[] secondCompared = findMaxTournament(2, firstCompared[0]-1, firstCompared); //log2(n)-1 comparisons.
//Total comparisons: n+log2(n)-2;
return secondCompared[1];
}
private static int[] findMaxTournament(int low, int high, int[] A){
if(low == high){
int[] compared = new int[2];
compared[0] = 2;
compared[1] = A[low];
return compared;
}
int[] compared1 = findMaxTournament(low, (low+high)/2, A);
int[] compared2 = findMaxTournament((low+high)/2+1, high, A);
if(compared1[1] > compared2[1]){
int k = compared1[0] + 1;
int[] newcompared1 = new int[k];
System.arraycopy(compared1, 0, newcompared1, 0, compared1[0]);
newcompared1[0] = k;
newcompared1[k-1] = compared2[1];
return newcompared1;
}
int k = compared2[0] + 1;
int[] newcompared2 = new int[k];
System.arraycopy(compared2, 0, newcompared2, 0, compared2[0]);
newcompared2[0] = k;
newcompared2[k-1] = compared1[1];
return newcompared2;
}
private static void printarray(int[] a){
for(int i:a){
System.out.print(i + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
//Demo.
System.out.println("Origial array: ");
int[] A = {10,4,5,8,7,2,12,3,1,6,9,11};
printarray(A);
int secondMax = findSecondRecursive(A.length,A);
Arrays.sort(A);
System.out.println("Sorted array(for check use): ");
printarray(A);
System.out.println("Second largest number in A: " + secondMax);
}
}
the problem is:
let's say, in comparison level 1, the algorithm need to be remember all the array element because largest is not yet known, then, second, finally, third. by keep tracking these element via assignment will invoke additional value assignment and later when the largest is known, you need also consider the tracking back. As the result, it will not be significantly faster than simple 2N-2 Comparison algorithm. Moreover, because the code is more complicated, you need also think about potential debugging time.
eg: in PHP, RUNNING time for comparison vs value assignment roughly is :Comparison: (11-19) to value assignment: 16.
I shall give some examples for better understanding. :
example 1 :
>12 56 98 12 76 34 97 23
>>(12 56) (98 12) (76 34) (97 23)
>>> 56 98 76 97
>>>> (56 98) (76 97)
>>>>> 98 97
>>>>>> 98
The largest element is 98
Now compare with lost ones of the largest element 98. 97 will be the second largest.
nlogn implementation
public class Test {
public static void main(String...args){
int arr[] = new int[]{1,2,2,3,3,4,9,5, 100 , 101, 1, 2, 1000, 102, 2,2,2};
System.out.println(getMax(arr, 0, 16));
}
public static Holder getMax(int[] arr, int start, int end){
if (start == end)
return new Holder(arr[start], Integer.MIN_VALUE);
else {
int mid = ( start + end ) / 2;
Holder l = getMax(arr, start, mid);
Holder r = getMax(arr, mid + 1, end);
if (l.compareTo(r) > 0 )
return new Holder(l.high(), r.high() > l.low() ? r.high() : l.low());
else
return new Holder(r.high(), l.high() > r.low() ? l.high(): r.low());
}
}
static class Holder implements Comparable<Holder> {
private int low, high;
public Holder(int r, int l){low = l; high = r;}
public String toString(){
return String.format("Max: %d, SecMax: %d", high, low);
}
public int compareTo(Holder data){
if (high == data.high)
return 0;
if (high > data.high)
return 1;
else
return -1;
}
public int high(){
return high;
}
public int low(){
return low;
}
}
}
Why not to use this hashing algorithm for given array[n]? It runs c*n, where c is constant time for check and hash. And it does n comparisons.
int first = 0;
int second = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if(array[i] > first) {
second = first;
first = array[i];
}
}
Or am I just do not understand the question...
In Python2.7: The following code works at O(nlog log n) for the extra sort. Any optimizations?
def secondLargest(testList):
secondList = []
# Iterate through the list
while(len(testList) > 1):
left = testList[0::2]
right = testList[1::2]
if (len(testList) % 2 == 1):
right.append(0)
myzip = zip(left,right)
mymax = [ max(list(val)) for val in myzip ]
myzip.sort()
secondMax = [x for x in myzip[-1] if x != max(mymax)][0]
if (secondMax != 0 ):
secondList.append(secondMax)
testList = mymax
return max(secondList)
public static int FindSecondLargest(int[] input)
{
Dictionary<int, List<int>> dictWinnerLoser = new Dictionary<int, List<int>>();//Keeps track of loosers with winners
List<int> lstWinners = null;
List<int> lstLoosers = null;
int winner = 0;
int looser = 0;
while (input.Count() > 1)//Runs till we get max in the array
{
lstWinners = new List<int>();//Keeps track of winners of each run, as we have to run with winners of each run till we get one winner
for (int i = 0; i < input.Count() - 1; i += 2)
{
if (input[i] > input[i + 1])
{
winner = input[i];
looser = input[i + 1];
}
else
{
winner = input[i + 1];
looser = input[i];
}
lstWinners.Add(winner);
if (!dictWinnerLoser.ContainsKey(winner))
{
lstLoosers = new List<int>();
lstLoosers.Add(looser);
dictWinnerLoser.Add(winner, lstLoosers);
}
else
{
lstLoosers = dictWinnerLoser[winner];
lstLoosers.Add(looser);
dictWinnerLoser[winner] = lstLoosers;
}
}
input = lstWinners.ToArray();//run the loop again with winners
}
List<int> loosersOfWinner = dictWinnerLoser[input[0]];//Gives all the elemetns who lost to max element of array, input array now has only one element which is actually the max of the array
winner = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < loosersOfWinner.Count(); i++)//Now max in the lossers of winner will give second largest
{
if (winner < loosersOfWinner[i])
{
winner = loosersOfWinner[i];
}
}
return winner;
}
How do you print numbers of form 2^i * 5^j in increasing order.
For eg:
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20
This is actually a very interesting question, especially if you don't want this to be N^2 or NlogN complexity.
What I would do is the following:
Define a data structure containing 2 values (i and j) and the result of the formula.
Define a collection (e.g. std::vector) containing this data structures
Initialize the collection with the value (0,0) (the result is 1 in this case)
Now in a loop do the following:
Look in the collection and take the instance with the smallest value
Remove it from the collection
Print this out
Create 2 new instances based on the instance you just processed
In the first instance increment i
In the second instance increment j
Add both instances to the collection (if they aren't in the collection yet)
Loop until you had enough of it
The performance can be easily tweaked by choosing the right data structure and collection.
E.g. in C++, you could use an std::map, where the key is the result of the formula, and the value is the pair (i,j). Taking the smallest value is then just taking the first instance in the map (*map.begin()).
I quickly wrote the following application to illustrate it (it works!, but contains no further comments, sorry):
#include <math.h>
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
typedef __int64 Integer;
typedef std::pair<Integer,Integer> MyPair;
typedef std::map<Integer,MyPair> MyMap;
Integer result(const MyPair &myPair)
{
return pow((double)2,(double)myPair.first) * pow((double)5,(double)myPair.second);
}
int main()
{
MyMap myMap;
MyPair firstValue(0,0);
myMap[result(firstValue)] = firstValue;
while (true)
{
auto it=myMap.begin();
if (it->first < 0) break; // overflow
MyPair myPair = it->second;
std::cout << it->first << "= 2^" << myPair.first << "*5^" << myPair.second << std::endl;
myMap.erase(it);
MyPair pair1 = myPair;
++pair1.first;
myMap[result(pair1)] = pair1;
MyPair pair2 = myPair;
++pair2.second;
myMap[result(pair2)] = pair2;
}
}
This is well suited to a functional programming style. In F#:
let min (a,b)= if(a<b)then a else b;;
type stream (current, next)=
member this.current = current
member this.next():stream = next();;
let rec merge(a:stream,b:stream)=
if(a.current<b.current) then new stream(a.current, fun()->merge(a.next(),b))
else new stream(b.current, fun()->merge(a,b.next()));;
let rec Squares(start) = new stream(start,fun()->Squares(start*2));;
let rec AllPowers(start) = new stream(start,fun()->merge(Squares(start*2),AllPowers(start*5)));;
let Results = AllPowers(1);;
Works well with Results then being a stream type with current value and a next method.
Walking through it:
I define min for completenes.
I define a stream type to have a current value and a method to return a new string, essentially head and tail of a stream of numbers.
I define the function merge, which takes the smaller of the current values of two streams and then increments that stream. It then recurses to provide the rest of the stream. Essentially, given two streams which are in order, it will produce a new stream which is in order.
I define squares to be a stream increasing in powers of 2.
AllPowers takes the start value and merges the stream resulting from all squares at this number of powers of 5. it with the stream resulting from multiplying it by 5, since these are your only two options. You effectively are left with a tree of results
The result is merging more and more streams, so you merge the following streams
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160...
25, 50, 100, 200, 400...
.
.
.
Merging all of these turns out to be fairly efficient with tail recursio and compiler optimisations etc.
These could be printed to the console like this:
let rec PrintAll(s:stream)=
if (s.current > 0) then
do System.Console.WriteLine(s.current)
PrintAll(s.next());;
PrintAll(Results);
let v = System.Console.ReadLine();
Similar things could be done in any language which allows for recursion and passing functions as values (it's only a little more complex if you can't pass functions as variables).
For an O(N) solution, you can use a list of numbers found so far and two indexes: one representing the next number to be multiplied by 2, and the other the next number to be multiplied by 5. Then in each iteration you have two candidate values to choose the smaller one from.
In Python:
numbers = [1]
next_2 = 0
next_5 = 0
for i in xrange(100):
mult_2 = numbers[next_2]*2
mult_5 = numbers[next_5]*5
if mult_2 < mult_5:
next = mult_2
next_2 += 1
else:
next = mult_5
next_5 += 1
# The comparison here is to avoid appending duplicates
if next > numbers[-1]:
numbers.append(next)
print numbers
So we have two loops, one incrementing i and second one incrementing j starting both from zero, right? (multiply symbol is confusing in the title of the question)
You can do something very straightforward:
Add all items in an array
Sort the array
Or you need an other solution with more math analysys?
EDIT: More smart solution by leveraging similarity with Merge Sort problem
If we imagine infinite set of numbers of 2^i and 5^j as two independent streams/lists this problem looks very the same as well known Merge Sort problem.
So solution steps are:
Get two numbers one from the each of streams (of 2 and of 5)
Compare
Return smallest
get next number from the stream of the previously returned smallest
and that's it! ;)
PS: Complexity of Merge Sort always is O(n*log(n))
I visualize this problem as a matrix M where M(i,j) = 2^i * 5^j. This means that both the rows and columns are increasing.
Think about drawing a line through the entries in increasing order, clearly beginning at entry (1,1). As you visit entries, the row and column increasing conditions ensure that the shape formed by those cells will always be an integer partition (in English notation). Keep track of this partition (mu = (m1, m2, m3, ...) where mi is the number of smaller entries in row i -- hence m1 >= m2 >= ...). Then the only entries that you need to compare are those entries which can be added to the partition.
Here's a crude example. Suppose you've visited all the xs (mu = (5,3,3,1)), then you need only check the #s:
x x x x x #
x x x #
x x x
x #
#
Therefore the number of checks is the number of addable cells (equivalently the number of ways to go up in Bruhat order if you're of a mind to think in terms of posets).
Given a partition mu, it's easy to determine what the addable states are. Image an infinite string of 0s following the last positive entry. Then you can increase mi by 1 if and only if m(i-1) > mi.
Back to the example, for mu = (5,3,3,1) we can increase m1 (6,3,3,1) or m2 (5,4,3,1) or m4 (5,3,3,2) or m5 (5,3,3,1,1).
The solution to the problem then finds the correct sequence of partitions (saturated chain). In pseudocode:
mu = [1,0,0,...,0];
while (/* some terminate condition or go on forever */) {
minNext = 0;
nextCell = [];
// look through all addable cells
for (int i=0; i<mu.length; ++i) {
if (i==0 or mu[i-1]>mu[i]) {
// check for new minimum value
if (minNext == 0 or 2^i * 5^(mu[i]+1) < minNext) {
nextCell = i;
minNext = 2^i * 5^(mu[i]+1)
}
}
}
// print next largest entry and update mu
print(minNext);
mu[i]++;
}
I wrote this in Maple stopping after 12 iterations:
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50
and the outputted sequence of cells added and got this:
1 2 3 5 7 10
4 6 8 11
9 12
corresponding to this matrix representation:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32...
5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160...
25, 50, 100, 200, 400...
First of all, (as others mentioned already) this question is very vague!!!
Nevertheless, I am going to give a shot based on your vague equation and the pattern as your expected result. So I am not sure the following will be true for what you are trying to do, however it may give you some idea about java collections!
import java.util.List;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.SortedSet;
import java.util.TreeSet;
public class IncreasingNumbers {
private static List<Integer> findIncreasingNumbers(int maxIteration) {
SortedSet<Integer> numbers = new TreeSet<Integer>();
SortedSet<Integer> numbers2 = new TreeSet<Integer>();
for (int i=0;i < maxIteration;i++) {
int n1 = (int)Math.pow(2, i);
numbers.add(n1);
for (int j=0;j < maxIteration;j++) {
int n2 = (int)Math.pow(5, i);
numbers.add(n2);
for (Integer n: numbers) {
int n3 = n*n1;
numbers2.add(n3);
}
}
}
numbers.addAll(numbers2);
return new ArrayList<Integer>(numbers);
}
/**
* Based on the following fuzzy question # StackOverflow
* http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7571934/printing-numbers-of-the-form-2i-5j-in-increasing-order
*
*
* Result:
* 1 2 4 5 8 10 16 20 25 32 40 64 80 100 125 128 200 256 400 625 1000 2000 10000
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> numbers = findIncreasingNumbers(5);
for (Integer i: numbers) {
System.out.print(i + " ");
}
}
}
If you can do it in O(nlogn), here's a simple solution:
Get an empty min-heap
Put 1 in the heap
while (you want to continue)
Get num from heap
print num
put num*2 and num*5 in the heap
There you have it. By min-heap, I mean min-heap
As a mathematician the first thing I always think about when looking at something like this is "will logarithms help?".
In this case it might.
If our series A is increasing then the series log(A) is also increasing. Since all terms of A are of the form 2^i.5^j then all members of the series log(A) are of the form i.log(2) + j.log(5)
We can then look at the series log(A)/log(2) which is also increasing and its elements are of the form i+j.(log(5)/log(2))
If we work out the i and j that generates the full ordered list for this last series (call it B) then that i and j will also generate the series A correctly.
This is just changing the nature of the problem but hopefully to one where it becomes easier to solve. At each step you can either increase i and decrease j or vice versa.
Looking at a few of the early changes you can make (which I will possibly refer to as transforms of i,j or just transorms) gives us some clues of where we are going.
Clearly increasing i by 1 will increase B by 1. However, given that log(5)/log(2) is approx 2.3 then increasing j by 1 while decreasing i by 2 will given an increase of just 0.3 . The problem then is at each stage finding the minimum possible increase in B for changes of i and j.
To do this I just kept a record as I increased of the most efficient transforms of i and j (ie what to add and subtract from each) to get the smallest possible increase in the series. Then applied whichever one was valid (ie making sure i and j don't go negative).
Since at each stage you can either decrease i or decrease j there are effectively two classes of transforms that can be checked individually. A new transform doesn't have to have the best overall score to be included in our future checks, just better than any other in its class.
To test my thougths I wrote a sort of program in LinqPad. Key things to note are that the Dump() method just outputs the object to screen and that the syntax/structure isn't valid for a real c# file. Converting it if you want to run it should be easy though.
Hopefully anything not explicitly explained will be understandable from the code.
void Main()
{
double C = Math.Log(5)/Math.Log(2);
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
int maxi = i;
int maxj = j;
List<int> outputList = new List<int>();
List<Transform> transforms = new List<Transform>();
outputList.Add(1);
while (outputList.Count<500)
{
Transform tr;
if (i==maxi)
{
//We haven't considered i this big before. Lets see if we can find an efficient transform by getting this many i and taking away some j.
maxi++;
tr = new Transform(maxi, (int)(-(maxi-maxi%C)/C), maxi%C);
AddIfWorthwhile(transforms, tr);
}
if (j==maxj)
{
//We haven't considered j this big before. Lets see if we can find an efficient transform by getting this many j and taking away some i.
maxj++;
tr = new Transform((int)(-(maxj*C)), maxj, (maxj*C)%1);
AddIfWorthwhile(transforms, tr);
}
//We have a set of transforms. We first find ones that are valid then order them by score and take the first (smallest) one.
Transform bestTransform = transforms.Where(x=>x.I>=-i && x.J >=-j).OrderBy(x=>x.Score).First();
//Apply transform
i+=bestTransform.I;
j+=bestTransform.J;
//output the next number in out list.
int value = GetValue(i,j);
//This line just gets it to stop when it overflows. I would have expected an exception but maybe LinqPad does magic with them?
if (value<0) break;
outputList.Add(value);
}
outputList.Dump();
}
public int GetValue(int i, int j)
{
return (int)(Math.Pow(2,i)*Math.Pow(5,j));
}
public void AddIfWorthwhile(List<Transform> list, Transform tr)
{
if (list.Where(x=>(x.Score<tr.Score && x.IncreaseI == tr.IncreaseI)).Count()==0)
{
list.Add(tr);
}
}
// Define other methods and classes here
public class Transform
{
public int I;
public int J;
public double Score;
public bool IncreaseI
{
get {return I>0;}
}
public Transform(int i, int j, double score)
{
I=i;
J=j;
Score=score;
}
}
I've not bothered looking at the efficiency of this but I strongly suspect its better than some other solutions because at each stage all I need to do is check my set of transforms - working out how many of these there are compared to "n" is non-trivial. It is clearly related since the further you go the more transforms there are but the number of new transforms becomes vanishingly small at higher numbers so maybe its just O(1). This O stuff always confused me though. ;-)
One advantage over other solutions is that it allows you to calculate i,j without needing to calculate the product allowing me to work out what the sequence would be without needing to calculate the actual number itself.
For what its worth after the first 230 nunmbers (when int runs out of space) I had 9 transforms to check each time. And given its only my total that overflowed I ran if for the first million results and got to i=5191 and j=354. The number of transforms was 23. The size of this number in the list is approximately 10^1810. Runtime to get to this level was approx 5 seconds.
P.S. If you like this answer please feel free to tell your friends since I spent ages on this and a few +1s would be nice compensation. Or in fact just comment to tell me what you think. :)
I'm sure everyone one's might have got the answer by now, but just wanted to give a direction to this solution..
It's a Ctrl C + Ctrl V from
http://www.careercup.com/question?id=16378662
void print(int N)
{
int arr[N];
arr[0] = 1;
int i = 0, j = 0, k = 1;
int numJ, numI;
int num;
for(int count = 1; count < N; )
{
numI = arr[i] * 2;
numJ = arr[j] * 5;
if(numI < numJ)
{
num = numI;
i++;
}
else
{
num = numJ;
j++;
}
if(num > arr[k-1])
{
arr[k] = num;
k++;
count++;
}
}
for(int counter = 0; counter < N; counter++)
{
printf("%d ", arr[counter]);
}
}
The question as put to me was to return an infinite set of solutions. I pondered the use of trees, but felt there was a problem with figuring out when to harvest and prune the tree, given an infinite number of values for i & j. I realized that a sieve algorithm could be used. Starting from zero, determine whether each positive integer had values for i and j. This was facilitated by turning answer = (2^i)*(2^j) around and solving for i instead. That gave me i = log2 (answer/ (5^j)). Here is the code:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var startTime = DateTime.Now;
int potential = 0;
do
{
if (ExistsIandJ(potential))
Console.WriteLine("{0}", potential);
potential++;
} while (potential < 100000);
Console.WriteLine("Took {0} seconds", DateTime.Now.Subtract(startTime).TotalSeconds);
}
private static bool ExistsIandJ(int potential)
{
// potential = (2^i)*(5^j)
// 1 = (2^i)*(5^j)/potential
// 1/(2^1) = (5^j)/potential or (2^i) = potential / (5^j)
// i = log2 (potential / (5^j))
for (var j = 0; Math.Pow(5,j) <= potential; j++)
{
var i = Math.Log(potential / Math.Pow(5, j), 2);
if (i == Math.Truncate(i))
return true;
}
return false;
}
}