I am looking for a fast (both in terms of complexity (the size of the problem may get close to 2^32) and in terms of the constant) algorithm, that doesn't necessarily have to compute the optimal solution (so a heuristic is acceptable if it produces results "close" to the optimal and has a "considerable" advantage in terms of computation time compared to computing the optimal solution) for a specific problem.
I have an integer histogram A: |A| = n, A[i]>0; and a value R: 0<R<=A[0]+...+A[n-1]. I must distribute -R over the histogram as evenly as possible. Formally this means something like this (there is some additional information in the formal notation too): I need to find B, such that |B| = |A| && B[i] = A[i] - C[i], where 0<=C[i]<=A[i] && C[0]+...+C[n-1] = R and C must minimize the expressions: L_2 = C[0]^2 + ... + C[n-1]^2 and L_infinity = max(C[0], ..., C[n-1]). Just from the formulation one can see that the problem doesn't necessarily have a unique solution (consider A[0] = 1, A[1] = 1 and R = 1, then both B[0]=0, B[1]=1 and B'[0]=1, B'[1]=0 are optimal solutions), an additional constraint may be added such as if A[i]<A[j] then C[i]<C[j] but it is not as important in my case. Naively one can iterate over all possibilities for C[i] (R-combination with repetitions) and find the optimal solutions, but obviously that is not very fast for larger n.
Another possible solution is finding q = R/n and r=R%n, then iterating over all elements and storing diff[i] = A[i]-q, if diff[i]<=0 then r-=diff[i] && B[i] = 0 && remove A[i], then continue with all non-removed A[i], by setting them to A[i] = diff[i], R = r, and n=n-removedElementsCount. If iterating this process, then at each step we would remove at least one element, until we reach the point where q == 0 or we have only 1 element, then we just need to only have A[i]-=1 for R such elements from A, since by then R<n in the q==0 case or just have A[i]-=R if we are in the case where we have only 1 element leftover (the case where we have 0 elements is trivial). Since we remove at least one element each step, and we need to iterate over (n - step) elements in the worst case, then we have a complexity of O((1+...+n)) = O(n^2).
I am hoping that somebody is already familiar with a better algorithm or if you have any ideas I'll be glad to hear them (I am aware that this can be regarded as an optimization problem also).
edit: made R positive so it would be easier to read.
Edit 2: I realized I messed up the optimization criteria.
Turn your histogram into an array of (value, index) pairs, and then turn it into a min heap. This operation is O(n).
Now your C is going to take some set of values to 0, reduce some by the max amount, and the rest by 1 less than the max amount. The max amount that you'd like to reduce everything by is easy to calculate, it is R/n rounded up.
Now go through the heap. As long as the value for the bottom of the heap is < ceil(R/size of heap), that value at that index will be set to zero, and remove that from the heap in time O(log(n)). Once that loop finishes, you can assign the max value and 1 less than the max value randomly to the rest.
This will run in O(n log(n)) worst time. You will hit that worst case when O(n) elements have to be zeroed out.
I came up with a very simple greedy algorithm in O(n*log(n)) time (if somebody manages to solve it in O(n) though I'll be glad to hear).
Algorithm:
Given: integer array: A[0],...,A[|A|-1]: A[i]>=0; integer: R0: 0<=R0<=A[0]+...+A[|A|-1].
Base:
Sort A in ascending order - takes O(n*log(n) time.
Set i = 0; R = R0; n = |A|; q = floor(R/n); r = R - q*n; d = q;.
if(i==|A| or R==0) goto 6.;
if(i>=|A|-r) d = q + 1;
4.
if(A[i]>=d)
{
R-=d;
A[i]-=d;
}
else
{
R-=A[i];
A[i] = 0;
n = |A|-(i+1);
q = floor(R/n);
d = q;
r = R - q*n;
}
i=i+1; goto 2.;
if(R>0) A[|A|-1] -= R; return A;
Informal solution optimality proof:
Let n = |A|.
Case 0: n==1 -> C[0] = R
Case 1: n>1 && A[i]>=q && A[j]>=q+1 for j>=max(0,n-r)
The optimal solution is given by C[i] = q for i<n-r && C[j] = q+1 for i>=n-r.
Assume there is another optimal solution given by C'[i] = C[i] + E[i], where the constraints for E are: E[0]+...+E[m-1]=0 (otherwise C' would violate C'[0] + ... + C'[n-1] = R), C[i]>=-E[i] (otherwise C'[i] would violate the non-negativity constraint), E[i] <= A[i] - C[i] (from C'[i]<=A[i]), and E[i]<=E[j] for i<=j (from C[i]<=C[j] for A[i]<=A[j] && A[i]<=A[j] for i<=j), then:
L_2' - L_2 = 2*q*(E[0]+...+E[n-r-1]) + 2*(q+1)*(E[n-r]+...+E[n-1]) + (E[0]^2 + ... + E[n-1]^2) = 2*q*0 + (E[0]^2 + ... + E[n-1]^2) + 2*(E[n-r] + ... + E[n-1]) >= 0
The last inequality is true since for every term 2*E[n-i], 1<=i<=r, there is a corresponding term E[n-i]^2, 1<=i<=r to cancel it out if it is negative at least for E[n-i]<-1. Let us analyze the case where 2*E[n-i] = -2, obviously E[n-i]^2 = 1 is not enough to cancel it out in this case. However, since all elements of E sum to 0, there exists j!=n-i: such that E[j] compensates for it, since we have the term E[j]^2. From the last inequality follows L_2<=L_2' for every possible solution C', this implies that C minimizes L_2. It is trivial to see that the L_inf minimization is also satisfied: L_inf = q + (r>0) <= L_inf' = max(q+E[0], ... , q+E[n-r-1], q+1+E[n-r], ... , q+1+E[n-1]), if we were to have an E[i]>1 for i<n-r, or E[j]>0 for j>=n-r, we get a higher maximum, we can also never decrease the maximum, since E sums to 0.
Case 2: n>1 && there exists k: A[k]<q
In this case the optimal solution requires that C[k] = A[k] for all k: A[k]<q. Let us assume that there exists an optimal solution C' such that C'[k]<A[k]<q -> C'[k]<q-1. There exists i>=k, such that C'[i]<q-1 && C'[i+1]>=q-1. Assume there is no such i, then C'[k] == C[n-1] < q-1, and C'[0]+...+C'[n-1]<n*q-n<R, this is a contradiction, which implies that such an i actually does exist. There also exists a j>k such that C[j]>q && C[j-1]<C[j] (if we assume this is untrue we once again get a contradiction with C summing to R). We needed these proofs in order to satisfy C[t]<=C[l] for t<=l. Let us consider the modified solution C''[t] = C'[t] for t!=i,j; and C''[i] = C'[i]+1, and C''[j] = C'[j]-1. L_2' - L_2'' = C'[i]^2 - (C'[i]+1)^2 + C'[j]^2 - (C'[j]-1)^2 = -2*C'[i] + 2*C'[j] - 2 = 2*((C'[j]-C'[i])-1) > 2*(1-1) = 0. The last inequality follows from (C'[i]<q-1 && C'[j]>q) -> C'[j] - C'[i] > 1. We proved that L_2'>L_2'' if we increment C[i]: C[i]<A[i]<q. By induction the optimal solution should have C[l]=A[l] for all l: A[l]<q. Once this is done one can inductively continue with the reduced problem n' = n-(i+1), R' = R - (C[0]+...+C[i]), q' = floor(R'/n'), r' = R' - q'*n', D[0] = A[i+1], ..., D[n'-1] = A[n-1].
Case 3: n>1 && A[i]>=q && A[j]<q+1 for j==max(0,n-r)
Since A[k]>=A[i] for k>=i, that implies that A[i]<q+1 for i<=j. But since we have also q<=A[i] this implies A[i]==q, so we cannot add any of the remainder in any C[i] : i<=j. The optimality of C[i]=A[i]=q for i<j follows from a proof done in case 1 (the proof there was more general with q+1 terms). Since the problem is optimal for 0<=i<j we can start solving a reduced problem: D[0] = A[j],...,D[n-j] = A[n-1].
Case 0, 1, 2, 3 are all the possible cases. Apart from case 0 and case 1 which give the solution explicitly, the solution in 2 and 3 reduces the problem to a smaller one which once again falls in one of the cases. Since the problem is reduced at every step, we get the final solution in a finite number of steps. We also never refer to an element more than once which implies O(n) time, but we need O(n*log(n)) for the sorting, so in the end we have O(n*log(n)) time complexity for the algorithm. I am unsure whether this problem can be solved in O(n) time, but I have the feeling that there is no way to get away without the sorting since case 2 and 3 rely on it heavily, so maybe O(n*log(n)) is the best possible complexity that can be achieved.
It's usually easy to calculate the time complexity for the best case and the worst case, but when it comes to the average case especially when there's a probability p given, I don't know where to start.
Let's look at the following algorithm to compute the product of all the elements in a matrix:
int computeProduct(int[][] A, int m, int n) {
int product = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < m; i++ {
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++) {
if (A[i][j] == 0) return 0;
product = product * A[i][j];
}
}
return product;
}
Suppose p is the probability of A[i][j] being 0 (i.e. the algorithm terminates there, return 0); how do we derive the average case time complexity for this algorithm?
Let’s consider a related problem. Imagine you have a coin that flips heads with probability p. How many times, on expectation, do you need to flip the coin before it comes up heads? The answer is 1/p, since
There’s a p chance that you need one flip.
There’s a p(1-p) chance that you need two flips (the first flip has to go tails and the second has to go heads).
There’s a p(1-p)^2 chance that you need three flips (the first two flips need to go tails and the third has to go heads)
...
There’s a p(1-p)^(k-1) chance that you need k flips (the first k-1 flips need to go tails and the kth needs to go heads.)
So this means the expected value of the number of flips is
p + 2p(1 - p) + 3p(1 - p)^2 + 4p(1 - p)^3 + ...
= p(1(1 - p)^0 + 2(1 - p)^1 + 3(1 - p)^2 + ...)
So now we need to work out what this summation is. The general form is
p sum from k = 1 to infinity (k(1 - p)^k).
Rather than solving this particular summation, let's make this more general. Let x be some variable that, later, we'll set equal to 1 - p, but which for now we'll treat as a free value. Then we can rewrite the above summation as
p sum from k = 1 to infinity (kx^(k-1)).
Now for a cute trick: notice that the inside of this expression is the derivative of x^k with respect to x. Therefore, this sum is
p sum from k = 1 to infinity (d/dx x^k).
The derivative is a linear operator, so we can move it out to the front:
p d/dx sum from k = 1 to infinity (x^k)
That inner sum (x + x^2 + x^3 + ...) is the Taylor series for 1 / (1 - x) - 1, so we can simplify this to get
p d/dx (1 / (1 - x) - 1)
= p / (1 - x)^2
And since we picked x = 1 - p, this simplifies to
p / (1 - (1 - p))^2
= p / p^2
= 1 / p
Whew! That was a long derivation. But it shows that the expected number of coin tosses needed is 1/p.
Now, in your case, your algorithm can be thought of as tossing mn coins that come up heads with probability p and stopping if any of them come up heads. Surely, the expected number of coins you’d need to toss won’t be more than the case where you’re allowed to flip infinitely often, so your expected runtime is at most O(1 / p) (assuming p > 0).
If we assume that p is independent of m and n, then we can notice that at after some initial growth, each added term into our summation as we increase the number of flips is exponentially lower than the previous ones. More specifically, after adding in roughly logarithmically many terms into the sum we’ll be off from the total in the case of the infinite summation. Therefore, provided that mn is roughly larger than Θ(log p), the sum ends up being Θ(1 / p). So in a big-O sense, if mn is independent of p, the runtime is Θ(1 / p).
The general problem is as follows. Given an increasing sequence of positive integers 0 < s_1 < s_2 < s_3 < ... and a positive integer n, is there an efficient algorithm to find the (unique) index k such that s_k <= n < s_(k+1)?
A concrete example of this problem with a particular nice solution is to find the largest nonzero digit of a binary expansion, i.e. take s_i = 2^(i-1), and then k = log_2(n).
A slightly harder example is to find the largest nonzero digit in the factorial expansion, i.e. take s_i = i!.
The example that I have in mind that brings up this question is the following:
s_i = ith triangular number = 1 + 2 + ... + i = i(i+1)/2
I'd like a nice solution to this, meaning something better than the following
for(int i=1; ; ++i) {
if (triangle[i] > n)
break;
}
return i;
NOTE: One cannot use a binary search here since the sequence is infinite. Of course, there is the obvious constraint that k <= n, but this is a horrible bound in general. For example, if s_i = i!, then using a binary search on n=20 requires computing 20! when the answer is k=3, so one shouldn't need to compute beyond 4!.
A general approach: Try solving the equation n = s(x) and the set k = floor(x).
For s_i=2^(i-1) you get x=log2(n)+1. For s_i=i*(i+1)/2 you get x=(sqrt(1+8n)-1)/2.
In case that the equation is not solvable analytically, try an approximation (e.g. Newton's method), or simply use a binary search on the sequence.
How to check if n can be partitioned to sum of a sequence of consecutive prime numbers.
For example, 12 is equal to 5+7 which 5 and 7 are consecutive primes, but 20 is equal to 3+17 which 3 and 17 are not consecutive.
Note that, repetition is not allowed.
My idea is to find and list all primes below n, then use 2 loops to sum all primes. The first 2 numbers, second 2 numbers, third 2 numbers etc. and then first 3 numbers, second 3 numbers and so far. But it takes lot of time and memory.
Realize that a consecutive list of primes is defined only by two pieces of information, the starting and the ending prime number. You just have to find these two numbers.
I assume that you have all the primes at your disposal, sorted in the array called primes. Keep three variables in memory: sum which initially is 2 (the smallest prime), first_index and last_index which are initially 0 (index of the smallest prime in array primes).
Now you have to "tweak" these two indices, and "travel" the array along the way in the loop:
If sum == n then finish. You have found your sequence of primes.
If sum < n then enlarge the list by adding next available prime. Increment last_index by one, and then increment sum by the value of new prime, which is primes[last_index]. Repeat the loop. But if primes[last_index] is larger than n then there is no solution, and you must finish.
If sum > n then reduce the list by removing the smallest prime from the list. Decrement sum by that value, which is primes[first_index], and then increment first_index by one. Repeat the loop.
Dialecticus's algorithm is the classic O(m)-time, O(1)-space way to solve this type of problem (here I'll use m to represent the number of prime numbers less than n). It doesn't depend on any mysterious properties of prime numbers. (Interestingly, for the particular case of prime numbers, AlexAlvarez's algorithm is also linear time!) Dialecticus gives a clear and correct description, but seems at a loss to explain why it is correct, so I'll try to do this here. I really think it's valuable to take the time to understand this particular algorithm's proof of correctness: although I had to read a number of explanations before it finally "sank in", it was a real "Aha!" moment when it did! :) (Also, problems that can be efficiently solved in the same manner crop up quite a lot.)
The candidate solutions this algorithm tries can be represented as number ranges (i, j), where i and j are just the indexes of the first and last prime number in a list of prime numbers. The algorithm gets its efficiency by ruling out (that is, not considering) sets of number ranges in two different ways. To prove that it always gives the right answer, we need to show that it never rules out the only range with the right sum. To that end, it suffices to prove that it never rules out the first (leftmost) range with the right sum, which is what we'll do here.
The first rule it applies is that whenever we find a range (i, j) with sum(i, j) > n, we rule out all ranges (i, k) having k > j. It's easy to see why this is justified: the sum can only get bigger as we add more terms, and we have determined that it's already too big.
The second, trickier rule, crucial to the linear time complexity, is that whenever we advance the starting point of a range (i, j) from i to i+1, instead of "starting again" from (i+1, i+1), we start from (i+1, j) -- that is, we avoid considering (i+1, k) for all i+1 <= k < j. Why is it OK to do this? (To put the question the other way: Couldn't it be that doing this causes us to skip over some range with the right sum?)
[EDIT: The original version of the next paragraph glossed over a subtlety: we might have advanced the range end point to j on any previous step.]
To see that it never skips a valid range, we need to think about the range (i, j-1). For the algorithm to advance the starting point of the current range, so that it changes from (i, j) to (i+1, j), it must have been that sum(i, j) > n; and as we will see, to get to a program state in which the range (i, j) is being considered in the first place, it must have been that sum(i, j-1) < n. That second claim is subtle, because there are two different ways to arrive in such a program state: either we just incremented the end point, meaning that the previous range was (i, j-1) and this range was found to be too small (in which case our desired property sum(i, j-1) < n obviously holds); or we just incremented the start point after considering (i-1, j) and finding it to be too large (in which case it's not obvious that the property still holds).
What we do know, however, is that regardless of whether the end point was increased from j-1 to j on the previous step, it was definitely increased at some time before the current step -- so let's call the range that triggered this end point increase (k, j-1). Clearly sum(k, j-1) < n, since this was (by definition) the range that caused us to increase the end point from j-1 to j; and just as clearly k <= i, since we only process ranges in increasing order of their start points. Since i >= k, sum(i, j-1) is just the same as sum(k, j-1) but with zero or more terms removed from the left end, and all of these terms are positive, so it must be that sum(i, j-1) <= sum(k, j-1) < n.
So we have established that whenever we increase i to i+1, we know that sum(i, j-1) < n. To finish the analysis of this rule, what we (again) need to make use of is that dropping terms from either end of this sum can't make it any bigger. Removing the first term leaves us with sum(i+1, j-1) <= sum(i, j-1) < n. Starting from that sum and successively removing terms from the other end leaves us with sum(i+1, j-2), sum(i+1, j-3), ..., sum(i+1, i+1), all of which we know must be less than n -- that is, none of the ranges corresponding to these sums can be valid solutions. Therefore we can safely avoid considering them in the first place, and that's exactly what the algorithm does.
One final potential stumbling block is that it might seem that, since we are advancing two loop indexes, the time complexity should be O(m^2). But notice that every time through the loop body, we advance one of the indexes (i or j) by one, and we never move either of them backwards, so if we are still running after 2m loop iterations we must have i + j = 2m. Since neither index can ever exceed m, the only way for this to hold is if i = j = m, which means that we have reached the end: i.e. we are guaranteed to terminate after at most 2m iterations.
The fact that primes have to be consecutive allows to solve quite efficiently this problem in terms of n. Let me suppose that we have previously computed all the primes less or equal than n. Therefore, we can easily compute sum(i) as the sum of the first i primes.
Having this function precomputed, we can loop over the primes less or equal than n and see whether there exists a length such that starting with that prime we can sum up to n. But notice that for a fixed starting prime, the sequence of sums is monotone, so we can binary search over the length.
Thus, let k be the number of primes less or equal than n. Precomputing the sums has cost O(k) and the loop has cost O(klogk), dominating the cost. Using the Prime number theorem, we know that k = O(n/logn), and then the whole algorithm has cost O(n/logn log(n/logn)) = O(n).
Let me put a code in C++ to make it clearer, hope there are not bugs:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
typedef long long ll;
int main() {
//Get the limit for the numbers
int MAX_N;
cin >> MAX_N;
//Compute the primes less or equal than MAX_N
vector<bool> is_prime(MAX_N + 1, true);
for (int i = 2; i*i <= MAX_N; ++i) {
if (is_prime[i]) {
for (int j = i*i; j <= MAX_N; j += i) is_prime[j] = false;
}
}
vector<int> prime;
for (int i = 2; i <= MAX_N; ++i) if (is_prime[i]) prime.push_back(i);
//Compute the prefixed sums
vector<ll> sum(prime.size() + 1, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < prime.size(); ++i) sum[i + 1] = sum[i] + prime[i];
//Get the number of queries
int n_queries;
cin >> n_queries;
for (int z = 1; z <= n_queries; ++z) {
int n;
cin >> n;
//Solve the query
bool found = false;
for (int i = 0; i < prime.size() and prime[i] <= n and not found; ++i) {
//Do binary search over the lenght of the sum:
//For all x < ini, [i, x] sums <= n
int ini = i, fin = int(prime.size()) - 1;
while (ini <= fin) {
int mid = (ini + fin)/2;
int value = sum[mid + 1] - sum[i];
if (value <= n) ini = mid + 1;
else fin = mid - 1;
}
//Check the candidate of the binary search
int candidate = ini - 1;
if (candidate >= i and sum[candidate + 1] - sum[i] == n) {
found = true;
cout << n << " =";
for (int j = i; j <= candidate; ++j) {
cout << " ";
if (j > i) cout << "+ ";
cout << prime[j];
}
cout << endl;
}
}
if (not found) cout << "No solution" << endl;
}
}
Sample input:
1000
5
12
20
28
17
29
Sample output:
12 = 5 + 7
No solution
28 = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 11
17 = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7
29 = 29
I'd start by noting that for a pair of consecutive primes to sum to the number, one of the primes must be less than N/2, and the other prime must be greater than N/2. For them to be consecutive primes, they must be the primes closest to N/2, one smaller and the other larger.
If you're starting with a table of prime numbers, you basically do a binary search for N/2. Look at the primes immediately larger and smaller than that. Add those numbers together and see if they sum to your target number. If they don't, then it can't be the sum of two consecutive primes.
If you don't start with a table of primes, it works out pretty much the same way--you still start from N/2 and find the next larger prime (we'll call that prime1). Then you subtract N-prime1 to get a candidate for prime2. Check if that's prime, and if it is, search the range prime2...N/2 for other primes to see if there was a prime in between. If there's a prime in between your number is a sum of non-consecutive primes. If there's no other prime in that range, then it is a sum of consecutive primes.
The same basic idea applies for sequences of 3 or more primes, except that (of course) your search starts from N/3 (or whatever number of primes you want to sum to get to the number).
So, for three consecutive primes to sum to N, 2 of the three must be the first prime smaller than N/3 and the first prime larger than N/3. So, we start by finding those, then compute N-(prime1+prime2). That gives use our third candidate. We know these three numbers sum to N. We still need to prove that this third number is a prime. If it is prime, we need to verify that it's consecutive to the other two.
To give a concrete example, for 10 we'd start from 3.333. The next smaller prime is 3 and the next larger is 5. Those add to 8. 10-8 = 2. 2 is prime and consecutive to 3, so we've found the three consecutive primes that add to 10.
There are some other refinements you can make as well. The most obvious would be based on the fact that all primes (other than 2) are odd numbers. Therefore (assuming we can ignore 2), an even number can only be the sum of an even number of primes, and an odd number can only be a sum of an odd number of primes. So, given 123456789, we know immediately that it can't possibly be the sum of 2 (or 4, 6, 8, 10, ...) consecutive primes, so the only candidates to consider are 3, 5, 7, 9, ... primes. Of course, the opposite works as well: given, say, 12345678, the simple fact that it's even lets us immediately rule out the possibility that it could be the sum of 3, 5, 7 or 9 consecutive primes; we only need to consider sequences of 2, 4, 6, 8, ... primes. We violate this basic rule only when we get to a large enough number of primes that we could include 2 as part of the sequence.
I haven't worked through the math to figure out exactly how many that would be be for a given number, but I'm pretty sure it should be fairly easy and it's something we want to know anyway (because it's the upper limit on the number of consecutive primes to look for for a given number). If we use M for the number of primes, the limit should be approximately M <= sqrt(N), but that's definitely only an approximation.
I know that this question is a little old, but I cannot refrain from replying to the analysis made in the previous answers. Indeed, it has been emphasized that all the three proposed algorithms have a run-time that is essentially linear in n. But in fact, it is not difficult to produce an algorithm that runs at a strictly smaller power of n.
To see how, let us choose a parameter K between 1 and n and suppose that the primes we need are already tabulated (if they must be computed from scratch, see below). Then, here is what we are going to do, to search a representation of n as a sum of k consecutive primes:
First we search for k<K using the idea present in the answer of Jerry Coffin; that is, we search k primes located around n/k.
Then to explore the sums of k>=K primes we use the algorithm explained in the answer of Dialecticus; that is, we begin with a sum whose first element is 2, then we advance the first element one step at a time.
The first part, that concerns short sums of big primes, requires O(log n) operations to binary search one prime close to n/k and then O(k) operations to search for the other k primes (there are a few simple possible implementations). In total this makes a running time
R_1=O(K^2)+O(Klog n).
The second part, that is about long sums of small primes, requires us to consider sums of consecutive primes p_1<\dots<p_k where the first element is at most n/K.
Thus, it requires to visit at most n/K+K primes (one can actually save a log factor by a weak version of the prime number theorem). Since in the algorithm every prime is visited at most O(1) times, the running time is
R_2=O(n/K) + O(K).
Now, if log n < K < \sqrt n we have that the first part runs with O(K^2) operations and the second part runs in O(n/K). We optimize with the choice K=n^{1/3}, so that the overall running time is
R_1+R_2=O(n^{2/3}).
If the primes are not tabulated
If we also have to find the primes, here is how we do it.
First we use Erathostenes, that in C_2=O(T log log T) operations finds all the primes up to T, where T=O(n/K) is the upper bound for the small primes visited in the second part of the algorithm.
In order to perform the first part of the algorithm we need, for every k<K, to find O(k) primes located around n/k. The Riemann hypothesis implies that there are at least k primes in the interval [x,x+y] if y>c log x (k+\sqrt x) for some constant c>0. Therefore a priori we need to find the primes contained in an interval I_k centered at n/k with width |I_k|= O(k log n)+O(\sqrt {n/k} log n).
Using the sieve Eratosthenes to sieve the interval I_k requires O(|I_k|log log n) + O(\sqrt n) operations. If k<K<\sqrt n we get a time complexity C_1=O(\sqrt n log n log log n) for every k<K.
Summing up, the time complexity C_1+C_2+R_1+R_2 is maximized when
K = n^{1/4} / (log n \sqrt{log log n}).
With this choice have the sublinear time complexity
R_1+R_2+C_1+C_2 = O(n^{3/4}\sqrt{log log n}.
If we do not assume the Riemann Hypothesis we will have to search on larger intervals, but we still get at the end a sublinear time complexity. If instead we assume stronger conjectures on prime gaps, we may only need to search on intervals I_k with width |I_k|=k (log n)^A for some A>0. Then, instead of Erathostenes, we can use other deterministic primality tests. For example, suppose that you can test a single number for primality in O((log n)^B) operations, for some B>0.
Then you can search the interval I_k in O(k(log n)^{A+B}) operations. In this case the optimal K is still K\approx n^{1/3}, up to logarithmic factors, and so the total complexity is O(n^{2/3}(log n)^D for some D>0.
A sequence of numbers was given in an interview such that A[0] >= A[1] and A[N-1] >= A[N-2]. I was asked to find at-least one triplet such that A[n-1] >= A[n] <= A[n+1].
I tried to solve in iterations. Interviewer expected better than linear time solution. How should I approach this question?
Example: 9 8 5 4 3 2 6 7
Answer: 3 2 6
We can solve this in O(logn) time using divide & conquer aka. binary search. Better than linear time. So we need to find a triplet such that A[n-1] >= A[n] <= A[n+1].
First find the mid of the given array. If mid is smaller than its left and greater than its right. then return, thats your answer. Incidentally this would be a basecase in your recursion. Also if len(arr) < 3 then too return. another basecase.
Now comes the recursion scenarios. When to recurse, we would need to inspect further right. For that, If mid is greater than the element on its left then consider start to left of the array as a subproblem and recurse with this new array. i.e. in tangible terms at this point we would have ...26... with index n being 6. So we move left to see if the element to the left of 2 completes the triplet.
Otherwise if mid is greater than element on its right subarray then consider mid+1 to right of the array as a subproblem and recurse.
More Theory: The above should be sufficient to understand the problem but read on. The problem essentially boils down to finding local minima in a given set of elements. A number in the array is called local minima if it is smaller than both its left and right numbers which precisely boils down to A[n-1] >= A[n] <= A[n+1].
A given array such that its first 2 elements are decreasing and last 2 elements are increasing HAS to have a local minima. Why is that? Lets prove this by negation. If first two numbers are decreasing, and there is no local minima, that means 3rd number is less than 2nd number. otherwise 2nd number would have been local minima. Following the same logic 4th number will have to be less than 3rd number and so on and so forth. So the numbers in the array will have to be in decreasing order. Which violates the constraint of last two numbers being in increasing order. This proves by negation that there need to be a local minima.
The above theory suggests a O(n) linear approach but we definitely can do better. But the theory definitely gives us a different perspective about the problem.
Code: Here's python code (fyi - was typed in stackoverflow text editor freehand, it might misbheave).
def local_minima(arr, start, end):
mid = (start+end)/2
if mid-2 < 0 and mid+1 >= len(arr):
return -1;
if arr[mid-2] > arr[mid-1] and arr[mid-1] < arr[mid]: #found it!
return mid-1;
if arr[mid-1] > arr[mid-2]:
return local_minima(arr, start, mid);
else:
return local_minima(arr, mid, end);
Note that I just return the index of the n. To print out the triple just do -1 and +1 to the returned index. source
It sounds like what you're asking is this:
You have a sequence of numbers. It starts decreasing and continues to decrease until element n, then it starts increasing until the end of the sequence. Find n.
This is a (non-optimal) solution in linear time:
for (i = 1; i < length(A) - 1; i++)
{
if ((A[i-1] >= A[i]) && (A[i] <= A[i+1]))
return i;
}
To do better than linear time, you need to use the information that you get from the fact that the series decreases then increases.
Consider the difference between A[i] and A[i+1]. If A[i] > A[i+1], then n > i, since the values are still decreasing. If A[i] <= A[i+1], then n <= i, since the values are now increasing. In this case you need to check the difference between A[i-1] and A[i].
This is a solution in log time:
int boundUpper = length(A) - 1;
int boundLower = 1;
int i = (boundUpper + boundLower) / 2; //initial estimate
while (true)
{
if (A[i] > A[i+1])
boundLower = i + 1;
else if (A[i-1] >= A[i])
return i;
else
boundUpper = i;
i = (boundLower + boundUpper) / 2;
}
I'll leave it to you to add in the necessary error check in the case that A does not have an element satisfying the criteria.
Linear you could just do by iterating through the set, comparing them all.
You could also check the slope of the first two, then do a kind of binary chop/in order traversal comparing pairs until you find one of the opposite slope. That would amortize to a better than n time, I think, though it's not guaranteed.
edit: just realised what your ordering meant. The binary chop method is guaranteed to do this in <n time, as there is guaranteed to be a point of change (assuming that your N-1, N-2 are the last two elements of the list).
This means you just need to find it/one of them, in which case binary chop will do it in order log(n)