Related
You are given an array of positive integers of size N. You can choose any positive number x such that x<=max(Array) and subtract it from all elements of the array greater than and equal to x.
This operation has a cost A[i]-x for A[i]>=x. The total cost for a particular step is the
sum(A[i]-x). A step is only valid if the sum(A[i]-x) is less than or equal to a given number K.
For all the valid steps find the minimum number of steps to make all elements of the array zero.
0<=i<10^5
0<=x<=10^5
0<k<10^5
Can anybody help me with any approach? DP will not work due to high constraints.
Just some general exploratory thoughts.
First, there should be a constraint on N. If N is 3, this is much easier than if it is 100. The naive brute force approach is going to be O(k^N)
Next, you are right that DP will not work with these constraints.
For a greedy approach, I would want to minimize the number of distinct non-zero values, and not maximize how much I took. Our worst case approach is take out the largest each time, for N steps. If you can get 2 pairs of entries to both match, then that shortened our approach.
The obvious thing to try if you can is an A* search. However that requires a LOWER bound (not upper). The best naive lower bound that I can see is ceil(log_2(count_distinct_values)). Unless you're incredibly lucky and the problem can be solved that quickly, this is unlikely to narrow your search enough to be helpful.
I'm curious what trick makes this problem actually doable.
I do have an idea. But it is going to take some thought to make it work. Naively we want to take each choice for x and explore the paths that way. And this is a problem because there are 10^5 choices for x. After 2 choices we have a problem, and after 3 we are definitely not going to be able to do it.
BUT instead consider the possible orders of the array elements (with ties both possible and encouraged) and the resulting inequalities on the range of choices that could have been made. And now instead of having to store a 10^5 choices of x we only need store the distinct orderings we get, and what inequalities there are on the range of choices that get us there. As long as N < 10, the number of weak orderings is something that we can deal with if we're clever.
It would take a bunch of work to flesh out this idea though.
I may be totally wrong, and if so, please tell me and I'm going to delete my thoughts: maybe there is an opportunity if we translate the problem into another form?
You are given an array A of positive integers of size N.
Calculate the histogram H of this array.
The highest populated slot of this histogram has index m ( == max(A)).
Find the shortest sequence of selections of x for:
Select an index x <= m which satisfies sum(H[i]*(i-x)) <= K for i = x+1 .. m (search for suitable x starts from m down)
Add H[x .. m] to H[0 .. m-x]
Set the new m as the highest populated index in H[0 .. x-1] (we ignore everything from H[x] up)
Repeat until m == 0
If there is only a "good" but not optimal solution sought for, I could imagine that some kind of spectral analysis of H could hint towards favorable x selections so that maxima in the histogram pile upon other maxima in the reduction step.
There is a sequence {a1, a2, a3, a4, ..... aN}. A run is the maximal strictly increasing or strictly decreasing continuous part of the sequence. Eg. If we have a sequence {1,2,3,4,7,6,5,2,3,4,1,2} We have 5 possible runs {1,2,3,4,7}, {7,6,5,2}, {2,3,4}, {4,1} and {1,2}.
Given four numbers N, M, K, L. Count the number of possible sequences of N numbers that has exactly M runs, each of the number in the sequence is less than or equal to K and difference between the adjacent numbers is less than equal to L
The question was asked during an interview.
I could only think of a brute force solution. What is an efficient solution for this problem?
Use dynamic programming. For each number in the substring maintain separate count of maximal increasing and maximally decreasing subsequences. When you incrementally add a new number to the end you can use these counts to update the counts for the new number. Complexity: O(n^2)
This can be rephrased as a recurrence problem. Look at your problem as finding #(N, M) (assume K and L are fixed, they are used in the recurrence conditions, so propagate accordingly). Now start with the more restricted count functions A(N, M; a) and D(N, M, a), where A counts those sets with last run ascending, D counts those with last run descending, and a is the value of the last element in the set.
Express #(N, M) in terms of A(N, M; a) and D(N, M; a) (it's the sum over all allowable a). You might note that there are relations between the two (like the reflection A(N, M; a) = D(N, M; K-a)) but that won't matter much for the calculation except to speed table filling.
Now A(N, M; a) can be expressed in terms of A(N-1, M; w), A(N-1, M-1; x), D(N-1, M; y) and D(N-1, M-1; z). The idea is that if you start with a set of size N-1 and know the direction of the last run and the value of the last element, you know whether adding element a will add to an existing run or add a run. So you can count the number of possible ways to get what you want from the possibilities of the previous case.
I'll let you write this recursion down. Note that this is where you account for L (only add up those that obey the L distance restriction) and K (look for end cases).
Terminate the recursion using the fact that A(1, 1; a) = 1, A(1, x>1; a) = 0 (and similarly for D).
Now, since this is a multiple recursion, be sure your implementation stores results in a table and begins by trying lookup (commonly called dynamic programming).
I suppose you mean by 'brute force solution' what I might mean by 'straightforward solution involving nested-loops over N,M,K,L' ? Sometimes the straightforward solution is good enough. One of the times when the straightforward solution is good enough is when you don't have a better solution. Another of the times is when the numbers are not very large.
With that off my chest I would write the loops in the reverse direction, or something like that. I mean:
Create 2 auxiliary data structures, one to contain the indices of the numbers <=K, one for the indices of the numbers whose difference with their neighbours is <=L.
Run through the list of numbers and populate the foregoing auxiliary data structures.
Find the intersection of the values in those 2 data structures; these will be the indices of interesting places to start searching for runs.
Look in each of the interesting places.
Until someone demonstrates otherwise this is the most efficient solution.
After reading this question and through the various Phone Book sorting scenarios put forth in the answer, I found the concept of the BOGO sort to be quite interesting. Certainly there is no use for this type of sorting algorithm but it did raise an interesting question in my mind-- could their be a sorting algorithm that is infinitely impossible to complete?
In other words, is there a process where one could attempt to compare and re-order a fixed set of data and can yet never achieve an actual sorted list?
This is much more of a theoretical/philosophical question than a practical one and if I was more of a mathematician I'd probably be able to prove/disprove such a possibility. Has anyone asked this question before and if so, what can be said about it?
[edit:] no deterministic process with a finite amount of state takes "O(infinity)" since the slowest it can be is to progress through all possible states. this includes sorting.
[earlier, more specific answer:]
no. for a list of size n you only have state space of size n! in which to store progress (assuming that the entire state of the sort is stored in the ordering of the elements and it really is "doing something," deterministically).
so the worst possible behaviour would cycle through all available states before terminating and take time proportional to n! (at the risk of confusing matters, there must be a single path through the state - since that is "all the state" you cannot have a process move from state X to Y, and then later from state X to Z, since that requires additional state, or is non-deterministic)
Idea 1:
function sort( int[] arr ) {
int[] sorted = quicksort( arr ); // compare and reorder data
while(true); // where'd this come from???
return sorted; // return answer
}
Idea 2
How do you define O(infinity)? The formal definition of Big-O merely states that f(x)=O(g(x)) implies that M*g(x) is an upper bound of f(x) given sufficiently large x and some constant M.
Typically when you talking about "infinity", you are talking about some sort of unbounded limit. So in this case, the only reasonable definition is saying that O(infinity) is O(function that's larger than every function). Obviously a function that's larger than every function is an upper bound. Thus technically everything is "O(infinity)"
Idea 3
Assuming you mean theta notation (tight bound)...
If you impose the additional restriction that the algorithm is smart (returns when it finds a sorted permutation) and every permutation of the list must be visited in a finite amount of time, then the answer no. There are only N! permutations of a list. The upper bound for such a sorting algorithm is then a finite over finite numbers, which is finite.
Your question doesn't really have much to do with sorting. An algorithm which is guaranteed never to complete would be pretty dull. Indeed, even an algorithm which would might or might not ever complete would be pretty dull. Much more interesting would be an algorithm which would be guaranteed to complete, eventually, but whose worst-case computation time with respect to the size of the input would not be expressible as O(F(N)) for any function F that could itself be computed in bounded time. My hunch would be that such an algorithm could be devised, but I'm not sure how.
How about this one:
Start at the first item.
Flip a coin.
If it's heads, switch it with the next item.
If it's tails, don't switch them.
If list is sorted, stop.
If not, move onto the next pair ...
It's a sorting algorithm -- the kind a monkey might do. Is there any guarantee that you'll arrive at a sorted list? I don't think so!
Yes -
SortNumbers(collectionOfNumbers)
{
If IsSorted(collectionOfNumbers){
reverse(collectionOfNumbers(1:end/2))
}
return SortNumbers(collectionOfNumbers)
}
Input: A[1..n] : n unique integers in arbitrary order
Output: A'[1..n] : reordering of the elements of A
such that A'[i] R(A') A'[j] if i < j.
Comparator: a R(A') b iff A'[i] = a, A'[j] = b and i > j
More generally, make the comparator something that's either (a) impossible to reconcile with the output specification, so that no solution can exist, or (b) uncomputable (e.g., sort these (input, turing machine) pairs in order of the number of steps needed for the machine to halt on the input).
Even more generally, if you have a procedure that fails to halt on a valid input, the procedure is not an algorithm which solves the problem on that input/output domain... which means you don't have an algorithm at all, or that what you have is only an algorithm if you appropriately restrict the domain.
Let's suppose that you have a random coin flipper, infinite arithmetic, and infinite rationals. Then the answer is yes. You can write a sorting algorithm which has 100% chance of successfully sorting your data (so it really is a sorting function), but which on average will take infinite time to do so.
Here is an emulation of this in Python.
# We'll pretend that these are true random numbers.
import random
import fractions
def flip ():
return 0.5 < random.random()
# This tests whether a number is less than an infinite precision number in the range
# [0, 1]. It has a 100% probability of returning an answer.
def number_less_than_rand (x):
high = fractions.Fraction(1, 1)
low = fractions.Fraction(0, 1)
while low < x and x < high:
if flip():
low = (low + high) / 2
else:
high = (low + high) / 2
return high < x
def slow_sort (some_array):
n = fractions.Fraction(100, 1)
# This loop has a 100% chance of finishing, but its average time to complete
# is also infinite. If you haven't studied infinite series and products, you'll
# just have to take this on faith. Otherwise proving that is a fun exercise.
while not number_less_than_rand(1/n):
n += 1
print n
some_array.sort()
For a part of a divide and conquer algorithm, I have the following question where the data structure is not fixed, so set is not to be taken literally:
Given a set X sorted wrt. some ordering of elements and subsets A and B together consisting of all elements in X, can sorted versions A' and B' of A and B be constructed in time linear in the number of elements in X ?
At the moment I am doing a standard sort at each recursive step giving the recursion
T(n) = 2*T(n/2) + O(n*log n)
for the complexity rather than
T(n) = 2*T(n/2) + O(n)
like in the procedural version, where one can utilize a structure with constant-time lookup on A and B to form A' and B' in linear time.
The added log n factor carries over to the overall complexity, giving O(n* (log n)^2) instead of O(n* log n).
EDIT:
Perhaps I am understanding the term lookup incorrectly. The creation of A' and B' in linear time is easy to do if membership of A and B can be checked in constant time.
I didn't succeed in my attempt at making things clearer by abstracting
away the specifics, so here is the actual problem:
I am implementing the algorithm for the closest pair problem. Given a
finite collection P of points in the plane it finds a pair of points
in P with the minimal distance. It works roughly as follows:
If P
has at least 4 points, form Px and
Py, the points in P sorted by x- and y-coordinate. By
splitting Px form L and R, the left- and right-most
halves of points. Recursively compute the closest pair distance in L and
R, let d be the minimum of the two. Now the minimum distance in P is
either d or the distance from a point in L to a point in R. If the
minimal distance is between points from separate halves, it will appear
between a pair of points lying in the strip of width 2*d centered around
the line x = x0, where x0 is the x-coordinate of
a right-most point in L. It turns out that to find a potential minimal distance pair in
the strip, it is enough to compute for every point in the the strip its
distance to the seven following points if the strip points are in a
collection sorted by y-coordinate.
It is in the steps with forming the sorted collections to pass into the recursion and sorting the strip points by y-coordinate where I don't see how to, in
Haskell, utilize having sorted P at the beginning of the recursion.
The following function may interest you:
partition :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
partition f xs = (filter f xs, filter (not . f) xs)
If you can compute set-membership in constant time, that is, there is a predicate of type a -> Bool that runs in constant time, then partition will run in time linear in the length of its input list. Furthermore, partition is stable, so that if its input list is sorted, then so are both output lists.
I would also like to point out that the above definition is meant to be give the semantics of partition only; the real implementation in GHC only walks its input list once, even if the entire output is forced.
Of course, the real crux of the question is providing a constant-time predicate. The way you phrased the question leaves sets A and B quite unstructured -- you demand that we can handle any particular partitioning. In that case, I don't know of any particularly Haskell-y way of doing constant-time lookup in arbitrary sets. However, often these problems are a bit more structured: often, rather than set-membership, you are actually interested in whether some easily-computable property holds or not. In this case, the above is just what the doctor ordered.
I know very very little about Haskell but here's a shot anyway.
Given that (A+B) == X can;t you just iterate through X (in the sorted order) and add each element to A' or B' if it exists in A or B? Give linear time lookup of element x in the Sets A and B that would be linear.
Is there a way to generate all of the subset sums s1, s2, ..., sk that fall in a range [A,B] faster than O((k+N)*2N/2), where k is the number of sums there are in [A,B]? Note that k is only known after we have enumerated all subset sums within [A,B].
I'm currently using a modified Horowitz-Sahni algorithm. For example, I first call it to for the smallest sum greater than or equal to A, giving me s1. Then I call it again for the next smallest sum greater than s1, giving me s2. Repeat this until we find a sum sk+1 greater than B. There is a lot of computation repeated between each iteration, even without rebuilding the initial two 2N/2 lists, so is there a way to do better?
In my problem, N is about 15, and the magnitude of the numbers is on the order of millions, so I haven't considered the dynamic programming route.
Check the subset sum on Wikipedia. As far as I know, it's the fastest known algorithm, which operates in O(2^(N/2)) time.
Edit:
If you're looking for multiple possible sums, instead of just 0, you can save the end arrays and just iterate through them again (which is roughly an O(2^(n/2) operation) and save re-computing them. The value of all the possible subsets is doesn't change with the target.
Edit again:
I'm not wholly sure what you want. Are we running K searches for one independent value each, or looking for any subset that has a value in a specific range that is K wide? Or are you trying to approximate the second by using the first?
Edit in response:
Yes, you do get a lot of duplicate work even without rebuilding the list. But if you don't rebuild the list, that's not O(k * N * 2^(N/2)). Building the list is O(N * 2^(N/2)).
If you know A and B right now, you could begin iteration, and then simply not stop when you find the right answer (the bottom bound), but keep going until it goes out of range. That should be roughly the same as solving subset sum for just one solution, involving only +k more ops, and when you're done, you can ditch the list.
More edit:
You have a range of sums, from A to B. First, you solve subset sum problem for A. Then, you just keep iterating and storing the results, until you find the solution for B, at which point you stop. Now you have every sum between A and B in a single run, and it will only cost you one subset sum problem solve plus K operations for K values in the range A to B, which is linear and nice and fast.
s = *i + *j; if s > B then ++i; else if s < A then ++j; else { print s; ... what_goes_here? ... }
No, no, no. I get the source of your confusion now (I misread something), but it's still not as complex as what you had originally. If you want to find ALL combinations within the range, instead of one, you will just have to iterate over all combinations of both lists, which isn't too bad.
Excuse my use of auto. C++0x compiler.
std::vector<int> sums;
std::vector<int> firstlist;
std::vector<int> secondlist;
// Fill in first/secondlist.
std::sort(firstlist.begin(), firstlist.end());
std::sort(secondlist.begin(), secondlist.end());
auto firstit = firstlist.begin();
auto secondit = secondlist.begin();
// Since we want all in a range, rather than just the first, we need to check all combinations. Horowitz/Sahni is only designed to find one.
for(; firstit != firstlist.end(); firstit++) {
for(; secondit = secondlist.end(); secondit++) {
int sum = *firstit + *secondit;
if (sum > A && sum < B)
sums.push_back(sum);
}
}
It's still not great. But it could be optimized if you know in advance that N is very large, for example, mapping or hashmapping sums to iterators, so that any given firstit can find any suitable partners in secondit, reducing the running time.
It is possible to do this in O(N*2^(N/2)), using ideas similar to Horowitz Sahni, but we try and do some optimizations to reduce the constants in the BigOh.
We do the following
Step 1: Split into sets of N/2, and generate all possible 2^(N/2) sets for each split. Call them S1 and S2. This we can do in O(2^(N/2)) (note: the N factor is missing here, due to an optimization we can do).
Step 2: Next sort the larger of S1 and S2 (say S1) in O(N*2^(N/2)) time (we optimize here by not sorting both).
Step 3: Find Subset sums in range [A,B] in S1 using binary search (as it is sorted).
Step 4: Next, for each sum in S2, find using binary search the sets in S1 whose union with this gives sum in range [A,B]. This is O(N*2^(N/2)). At the same time, find if that corresponding set in S2 is in the range [A,B]. The optimization here is to combine loops. Note: This gives you a representation of the sets (in terms of two indexes in S2), not the sets themselves. If you want all the sets, this becomes O(K + N*2^(N/2)), where K is the number of sets.
Further optimizations might be possible, for instance when sum from S2, is negative, we don't consider sums < A etc.
Since Steps 2,3,4 should be pretty clear, I will elaborate further on how to get Step 1 done in O(2^(N/2)) time.
For this, we use the concept of Gray Codes. Gray codes are a sequence of binary bit patterns in which each pattern differs from the previous pattern in exactly one bit.
Example: 00 -> 01 -> 11 -> 10 is a gray code with 2 bits.
There are gray codes which go through all possible N/2 bit numbers and these can be generated iteratively (see the wiki page I linked to), in O(1) time for each step (total O(2^(N/2)) steps), given the previous bit pattern, i.e. given current bit pattern, we can generate the next bit pattern in O(1) time.
This enables us to form all the subset sums, by using the previous sum and changing that by just adding or subtracting one number (corresponding to the differing bit position) to get the next sum.
If you modify the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm in the right way, then it's hardly slower than original Horowitz-Sahni. Recall that Horowitz-Sahni works two lists of subset sums: Sums of subsets in the left half of the original list, and sums of subsets in the right half. Call these two lists of sums L and R. To obtain subsets that sum to some fixed value A, you can sort R, and then look up a number in R that matches each number in L using a binary search. However, the algorithm is asymmetric only to save a constant factor in space and time. It's a good idea for this problem to sort both L and R.
In my code below I also reverse L. Then you can keep two pointers into R, updated for each entry in L: A pointer to the last entry in R that's too low, and a pointer to the first entry in R that's too high. When you advance to the next entry in L, each pointer might either move forward or stay put, but they won't have to move backwards. Thus, the second stage of the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm only takes linear time in the data generated in the first stage, plus linear time in the length of the output. Up to a constant factor, you can't do better than that (once you have committed to this meet-in-the-middle algorithm).
Here is a Python code with example input:
# Input
terms = [29371, 108810, 124019, 267363, 298330, 368607,
438140, 453243, 515250, 575143, 695146, 840979, 868052, 999760]
(A,B) = (500000,600000)
# Subset iterator stolen from Sage
def subsets(X):
yield []; pairs = []
for x in X:
pairs.append((2**len(pairs),x))
for w in xrange(2**(len(pairs)-1), 2**(len(pairs))):
yield [x for m, x in pairs if m & w]
# Modified Horowitz-Sahni with toolow and toohigh indices
L = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[:len(terms)/2])])
R = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[len(terms)/2:])])
(toolow,toohigh) = (-1,0)
for (Lsum,S) in reversed(L):
while R[toolow+1][0] < A-Lsum and toolow < len(R)-1: toolow += 1
while R[toohigh][0] <= B-Lsum and toohigh < len(R): toohigh += 1
for n in xrange(toolow+1,toohigh):
print '+'.join(map(str,S+R[n][1])),'=',sum(S+R[n][1])
"Moron" (I think he should change his user name) raises the reasonable issue of optimizing the algorithm a little further by skipping one of the sorts. Actually, because each list L and R is a list of sizes of subsets, you can do a combined generate and sort of each one in linear time! (That is, linear in the lengths of the lists.) L is the union of two lists of sums, those that include the first term, term[0], and those that don't. So actually you should just make one of these halves in sorted form, add a constant, and then do a merge of the two sorted lists. If you apply this idea recursively, you save a logarithmic factor in the time to make a sorted L, i.e., a factor of N in the original variable of the problem. This gives a good reason to sort both lists as you generate them. If you only sort one list, you have some binary searches that could reintroduce that factor of N; at best you have to optimize them somehow.
At first glance, a factor of O(N) could still be there for a different reason: If you want not just the subset sum, but the subset that makes the sum, then it looks like O(N) time and space to store each subset in L and in R. However, there is a data-sharing trick that also gets rid of that factor of O(N). The first step of the trick is to store each subset of the left or right half as a linked list of bits (1 if a term is included, 0 if it is not included). Then, when the list L is doubled in size as in the previous paragraph, the two linked lists for a subset and its partner can be shared, except at the head:
0
|
v
1 -> 1 -> 0 -> ...
Actually, this linked list trick is an artifact of the cost model and never truly helpful. Because, in order to have pointers in a RAM architecture with O(1) cost, you have to define data words with O(log(memory)) bits. But if you have data words of this size, you might as well store each word as a single bit vector rather than with this pointer structure. I.e., if you need less than a gigaword of memory, then you can store each subset in a 32-bit word. If you need more than a gigaword, then you have a 64-bit architecture or an emulation of it (or maybe 48 bits), and you can still store each subset in one word. If you patch the RAM cost model to take account of word size, then this factor of N was never really there anyway.
So, interestingly, the time complexity for the original Horowitz-Sahni algorithm isn't O(N*2^(N/2)), it's O(2^(N/2)). Likewise the time complexity for this problem is O(K+2^(N/2)), where K is the length of the output.