Related
I am trying to solve a problem which is described below,
Given value of f(0) and k , which are integers.
I need to find value of f( T ). where T<=1010
Recursive function is,
f(n) = 2*f(n-1) , if 4*f(n-1) <=k
k - ( 2*f(n-1) ) , if 4*f(n-1) > k
My efforts,
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
long k,f0,i;
cin>>k>>f0;
long operation ;
cin>>operation;
long answer=f0;
for(i=1;i<=operation;i++){
answer=(4*answer <= k )?(2*answer):(k-(2*answer));
}
cout<<answer;
return 0;
}
My code gives me right answer. But, The code will run 1010 time in worst case that gives me Time Limit Exceed. I need more efficient solution for this problem. Please help me. I don't know the correct algorithm.
If 2f(0) < k then you can compute this function in O(log n) time (using exponentiation by squaring modulo k).
r = f(0) * 2^n mod k
return 2 * r >= k ? k - r : r
You can prove this by induction. The induction hypothesis is that 0 <= f(n) < k/2, and that the above code fragment computes f(n).
Here's a Python program which checks random test cases, comparing a naive implementation (f) with an optimized one (g).
def f(n, k, z):
r = z
for _ in xrange(n):
if 4*r <= k:
r = 2 * r
else:
r = k - 2 * r
return r
def g(n, k, z):
r = (z * pow(2, n, k)) % k
if 2 * r >= k:
r = k - r
return r
import random
errs = 0
while errs < 20:
k = random.randrange(100, 10000000)
n = random.randrange(100000)
z = random.randrange(k//2)
a1 = f(n, k, z)
a2 = g(n, k, z)
if a1 != a2:
print n, k, z, a1, a2
errs += 1
print '.',
Can you use methmetical solution before progamming and compulating?
Actually,
f(n) = f0*2^(n-1) , if f(n-1)*4 <= k
k - f0*2^(n-1) , if f(n-1)*4 > k
thus, your code will write like this:
condition = f0*pow(2, operation-2)
answer = condition*4 =< k? condition*2: k - condition*2
For a simple loop, your answer looks pretty tight; one could optimise a little bit using answer<<2 instead of 4*answer, and answer<<1 for 2*answer, but quite possibly your compiler is already doing that. If you're blowing the time with this, it might be necessary to reduce the loop itself somehow.
I can't figure out a mathematical pattern that #Shannon was going for, but I'm thinking we could exploit the fact that this function will sooner or later cycle. If the cycle is short enough, then we could short the loop by just getting the answer at the same point in the cycle.
So let's get some cycle detection equipment in the form of Brent's algorithm, and see if we can cut the loop to reasonable levels.
def brent(f, x0):
# main phase: search successive powers of two
power = lam = 1
tortoise = x0
hare = f(x0) # f(x0) is the element/node next to x0.
while tortoise != hare:
if power == lam: # time to start a new power of two?
tortoise = hare
power *= 2
lam = 0
hare = f(hare)
lam += 1
# Find the position of the first repetition of length λ
mu = 0
tortoise = hare = x0
for i in range(lam):
# range(lam) produces a list with the values 0, 1, ... , lam-1
hare = f(hare)
# The distance between the hare and tortoise is now λ.
# Next, the hare and tortoise move at same speed until they agree
while tortoise != hare:
tortoise = f(tortoise)
hare = f(hare)
mu += 1
return lam, mu
f0 = 2
k = 198779
t = 10000000000
def f(x):
if 4 * x <= k:
return 2 * x
else:
return k - 2 * x
lam, mu = brent(f, f0)
t2 = t
if t >= mu + lam: # if T is past the cycle's first loop,
t2 = (t - mu) % lam + mu # find the equivalent place in the first loop
x = f0
for i in range(t2):
x = f(x)
print("Cycle start: %d; length: %d" % (mu, lam))
print("Equivalent result at index: %d" % t2)
print("Loop iterations skipped: %d" % (t - t2))
print("Result: %d" % x)
As opposed to the other proposed answers, this approach actually could use a memo array to speed up the process, since the start of the function is actually calculated multiple times (in particular, inside brent), or it may be irrelevant, depending on how big the cycle happens to be.
The algorithm you proposed already has O(n).
To come up with more efficient algorithms, there is not that much direction we can go about. Some typical options we have
1.Decease the coefficients of the linear term( but I doubt it would make a difference in this case
2.Change to O(Logn)(typically use some sort of divide and conquer technique)
3.Change to O(1)
In this case, we can do the last one.
The recursion function is a piece-wise function
f(n) = 2*f(n-1) , if 4*f(n-1) <=k
k - ( 2*f(n-1) ) , if 4*f(n-1) > k
Let's tackle it by case:
case 1: if 4*f(n-1) <= k (1)(assuming the starting index is zero)
this is a obvious a geometry series
a_n = 2*a_n-1
Therefore, have the formula
Sn = 2^(n-1)f(0) ----()
Case 2: if 4*f(n-1) > k (2), we have
a_n = -2a_n-1 + k
Assuming, a_j is the element in the sequence which just satisfy condition (2)
Nestedly sub in an_1 to the formula, you will obtain the equation
an = k -2k +4k -8k... +(-2)^(n-j)* a_j
k -2k 4k -8... is another gemo series
Sn = k*(1-2^(n-j))/(1-2) ---gemo series sum formula with starting value k and ratio = -2
Therefore, we have a formula for an in the case 2
an = k * (1-2^(n-j))/(1-2) + (-2)^(n-j) * a_j ----（**）
All we left to do it to find aj which just dissatisfy condition (1) and satisfy (2)
This can be obtained in constant time again using the formula we have for case 1:
find n such that, 4*an = 4*Sn = 4*2^(n-1)*f(0)
solve for n: 4*2^(n-1)*f(0) = k, if n is not integer, take ceiling of n
In my first attempt to solve this question, I had wrong assumption that the value of the sequence is monotonically increasing but in fact the sequence might jump between case 1 and case 2. Therefore, there might not be constant algorithm to solve the problem.
However, we can use utilize the result above to skip iterative update complexity.
The overall algorithm will look something like:
start with T, K, and f(0)
compute n that make the condition switch using either (*) or (**)
update f(0) with f(n), update T - n
repeat
terminate when T-n = 0(the last iteration might over compute causing T-n<0, therefore, you need to go back a little bit if that happen)
Create a map that can store your results. Before finding f(n) check in that map, if solution is already existed or not.
If exists, use that solution.
Otherwise find it, store it for future use.
For C++:
Definition:
map<long,long>result;
Insertion:
result[key]=value
Accessing:
value=result[key];
Checking:
map<long,long>::iterator it=result.find(key);
if(it==result.end())
{
//key was not found, find the solution and insert into result
}
else
{
return result[key];
}
Use above technique for better solution.
I encountered this question in an interview and could not figure it out. I believe it has a dynamic programming solution but it eludes me.
Given a number of bricks, output the total number of 2d pyramids possible, where a pyramid is defined as any structure where a row of bricks has strictly less bricks than the row below it. You do not have to use all the bricks.
A brick is simply a square, the number of bricks in a row is the only important bit of information.
Really stuck with this one, I thought it would be easy to solve each problem 1...n iteratively and sum. But coming up with the number of pyramids possible with exactly i bricks is evading me.
example, n = 6
X
XX
X
XX XXX
X
XXX XXXX
XX X
XXX XXXX XXXXX
X
XX XX X
XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX
So the answer is 13 possible pyramids from 6 bricks.
edit
I am positive this is a dynamic programming problem, because it makes sense to (once you've determined the first row) simply look to the index in your memorized array of your remainder of bricks to see how many pyramids fit atop.
It also makes sense to consider bottom rows of width at least n/2 because we can't have more bricks atop than on the bottom row EXCEPT and this is where I lose it and my mind falls apart, in certain (few cases) you can I.e. N = 10
X
XX
XXX
XXXX
Now the bottom row has 4 but there are 6 left to place on top
But with n = 11 we cannot have a bottom row with less than n/2 bricks. There is another wierd inconsistency like that with n = 4 where we cannot have a bottom row of n/2 = 2 bricks.
Let's choose a suitable definition:
f(n, m) = # pyramids out of n bricks with base of size < m
The answer you are looking for now is (given that N is your input number of bricks):
f(N, N+1) - 1
Let's break that down:
The first N is obvious: that's your number of bricks.
Your bottom row will contain at most N bricks (because that's all you have), so N+1 is a sufficient lower bound.
Finally, the - 1 is there because technically the empty pyramid is also a pyramid (and will thus be counted) but you exclude that from your solutions.
The base cases are simple:
f(n, 0) = 1 for any n >= 0
f(0, m) = 1 for any m >= 0
In both cases, it's the empty pyramid that we are counting here.
Now, all we need still is a recursive formula for the general case.
Let's assume we are given n and m and choose to have i bricks on the bottom layer. What can we place on top of this layer? A smaller pyramid, for which we have n - i bricks left and whose base has size < i. This is exactly f(n - i, i).
What is the range for i? We can choose an empty row so i >= 0. Obviously, i <= n because we have only n bricks. But also, i <= m - 1, by definition of m.
This leads to the recursive expression:
f(n, m) = sum f(n - i, i) for 0 <= i <= min(n, m - 1)
You can compute f recursively, but using dynamic programming it will be faster of course. Storing the results matrix is straightforward though, so I leave that up to you.
Coming back to the original claim that f(N, N+1)-1 is the answer you are looking for, it doesn't really matter which value to choose for m as long as it is > N. Based on the recursive formula it's easy to show that f(N, N + 1) = f(N, N + k) for every k >= 1:
f(N, N + k) = sum f(N - i, i) for 0 <= i <= min(N, N + k - 1)
= sum f(N - i, i) for 0 <= i <= N
= sum f(N - i, i) for 0 <= i <= min(N, N + 1 - 1)
In how many ways can you build a pyramid of width n? By putting any pyramid of width n-1 or less anywhere atop the layer of n bricks. So if p(n) is the number of pyramids of width n, then p(n) = sum [m=1 to n-1] (p(m) * c(n, m)), where c(n, m) is the number of ways you can place a layer of width m atop a layer of width n (I trust that you can work that one out yourself).
This, however, doesn't place a limitation on the number of bricks. Generally, in DP, any resource limitation must be modeled as a separate dimension. So your problem is now p(n, b): "How many pyramids can you build of width n with a total of b bricks"? In the recursive formula, for each possible way of building a smaller pyramid atop your current one, you need to refer to the correct amount of remaining bricks. I leave it as a challenge for you to work out the recursive formula; let me know if you need any hints.
You can think of your recursion as: given x bricks left where you used n bricks on last row, how many pyramids can you build. Now you can fill up rows from either top to bottom row or bottom to top row. I will explain the former case.
Here the recursion might look something like this (left is number of bricks left and last is number of bricks used on last row)
f(left,last)=sum (1+f(left-i,i)) for i in range [last+1,left] inclusive.
Since when you use i bricks on current row you will have left-i bricks left and i will be number of bricks used on this row.
Code:
int calc(int left, int last) {
int total=0;
if(left<=0) return 0; // terminal case, no pyramid with no brick
for(int i=last+1; i<=left; i++) {
total+=1+calc(left-i,i);
}
return total;
}
I will leave it to you to implement memoized or bottom-up dp version. Also you may want to start from bottom row and fill up upper rows in pyramid.
Since we are asked to count pyramids of any cardinality less than or equal to n, we may consider each cardinality in turn (pyramids of 1 element, 2 elements, 3...etc.) and sum them up. But in how many different ways can we compose a pyramid from k elements? The same number as the count of distinct partitions of k (for example, for k = 6, we can have (6), (1,5), (2,4), and (1,2,3)). A generating function/recurrence for the count of distinct partitions is described in Wikipedia and a sequence at OEIS.
Recurrence, based on the Pentagonal number Theorem:
q(k) = ak + q(k − 1) + q(k − 2) − q(k − 5) − q(k − 7) + q(k − 12) + q(k − 15) − q(k − 22)...
where ak is (−1)^(abs(m)) if k = 3*m^2 − m for some integer m and is 0 otherwise.
(The subtracted coefficients are generalized pentagonal numbers.)
Since the recurrence described in Wikipedia obliges the calculation of all preceding q(n)'s to arrive at a larger q(n), we can simply sum the results along the way to obtain our result.
JavaScript code:
function numPyramids(n){
var distinctPartitions = [1,1],
pentagonals = {},
m = _m = 1,
pentagonal_m = 2,
result = 1;
while (pentagonal_m / 2 <= n){
pentagonals[pentagonal_m] = Math.abs(_m);
m++;
_m = m % 2 == 0 ? -m / 2 : Math.ceil(m / 2);
pentagonal_m = _m * (3 * _m - 1);
}
for (var k=2; k<=n; k++){
distinctPartitions[k] = pentagonals[k] ? Math.pow(-1,pentagonals[k]) : 0;
var cs = [1,1,-1,-1],
c = 0;
for (var i in pentagonals){
if (i / 2 > k)
break;
distinctPartitions[k] += cs[c]*distinctPartitions[k - i / 2];
c = c == 3 ? 0 : c + 1;
}
result += distinctPartitions[k];
}
return result;
}
console.log(numPyramids(6)); // 13
The question is Number of solutions to a1 x1+a2 x2+....+an xn=k with constraints: 1)ai>0 and ai<=15 2)n>0 and n<=15 3)xi>=0 I was able to formulate a Dynamic programming solution but it is running too long for n>10^10. Please guide me to get a more efficient soution.
The code
int dp[]=new int[16];
dp[0]=1;
BigInteger seen=new BigInteger("0");
while(true)
{
for(int i=0;i<arr[0];i++)
{
if(dp[0]==0)
break;
dp[arr[i+1]]=(dp[arr[i+1]]+dp[0])%1000000007;
}
for(int i=1;i<15;i++)
dp[i-1]=dp[i];
seen=seen.add(new BigInteger("1"));
if(seen.compareTo(n)==0)
break;
}
System.out.println(dp[0]);
arr is the array containing coefficients and answer should be mod 1000000007 as the number of ways donot fit into an int.
Update for real problem:
The actual problem is much simpler. However, it's hard to be helpful without spoiling it entirely.
Stripping it down to the bare essentials, the problem is
Given k distinct positive integers L1, ... , Lk and a nonnegative integer n, how many different finite sequences (a1, ..., ar) are there such that 1. for all i (1 <= i <= r), ai is one of the Lj, and 2. a1 + ... + ar = n. (In other words, the number of compositions of n using only the given Lj.)
For convenience, you are also told that all the Lj are <= 15 (and hence k <= 15), and n <= 10^18. And, so that the entire computation can be carried out using 64-bit integers (the number of sequences grows exponentially with n, you wouldn't have enough memory to store the exact number for large n), you should only calculate the remainder of the sequence count modulo 1000000007.
To solve such a problem, start by looking at the simplest cases first. The very simplest cases are when only one L is given, then evidently there is one admissible sequence if n is a multiple of L and no admissible sequence if n mod L != 0. That doesn't help yet. So consider the next simplest cases, two L values given. Suppose those are 1 and 2.
0 has one composition, the empty sequence: N(0) = 1
1 has one composition, (1): N(1) = 1
2 has two compositions, (1,1); (2): N(2) = 2
3 has three compositions, (1,1,1);(1,2);(2,1): N(3) = 3
4 has five compositions, (1,1,1,1);(1,1,2);(1,2,1);(2,1,1);(2,2): N(4) = 5
5 has eight compositions, (1,1,1,1,1);(1,1,1,2);(1,1,2,1);(1,2,1,1);(2,1,1,1);(1,2,2);(2,1,2);(2,2,1): N(5) = 8
You may see it now, or need a few more terms, but you'll notice that you get the Fibonacci sequence (shifted by one), N(n) = F(n+1), thus the sequence N(n) satisfies the recurrence relation
N(n) = N(n-1) + N(n-2) (for n >= 2; we have not yet proved that, so far it's a hypothesis based on pattern-spotting). Now, can we see that without calculating many values? Of course, there are two types of admissible sequences, those ending with 1 and those ending with 2. Since that partitioning of the admissible sequences restricts only the last element, the number of ad. seq. summing to n and ending with 1 is N(n-1) and the number of ad. seq. summing to n and ending with 2 is N(n-2).
That reasoning immediately generalises, given L1 < L2 < ... < Lk, for all n >= Lk, we have
N(n) = N(n-L1) + N(n-L2) + ... + N(n-Lk)
with the obvious interpretation if we're only interested in N(n) % m.
Umm, that linear recurrence still leaves calculating N(n) as an O(n) task?
Yes, but researching a few of the mentioned keywords quickly leads to an algorithm needing only O(log n) steps ;)
Algorithm for misinterpreted problem, no longer relevant, but may still be interesting:
The question looks a little SPOJish, so I won't give a complete algorithm (at least, not before I've googled around a bit to check if it's a contest question). I hope no restriction has been omitted in the description, such as that permutations of such representations should only contribute one to the count, that would considerably complicate the matter. So I count 1*3 + 2*4 = 11 and 2*4 + 1*3 = 11 as two different solutions.
Some notations first. For m-tuples of numbers, let < | > denote the canonical bilinear pairing, i.e.
<a|x> = a_1*x_1 + ... + a_m*x_m. For a positive integer B, let A_B = {1, 2, ..., B} be the set of positive integers not exceeding B. Let N denote the set of natural numbers, i.e. of nonnegative integers.
For 0 <= m, k and B > 0, let C(B,m,k) = card { (a,x) \in A_B^m × N^m : <a|x> = k }.
Your problem is then to find \sum_{m = 1}^15 C(15,m,k) (modulo 1000000007).
For completeness, let us mention that C(B,0,k) = if k == 0 then 1 else 0, which can be helpful in theoretical considerations. For the case of a positive number of summands, we easily find the recursion formula
C(B,m+1,k) = \sum_{j = 0}^k C(B,1,j) * C(B,m,k-j)
By induction, C(B,m,_) is the convolution¹ of m factors C(B,1,_). Calculating the convolution of two known functions up to k is O(k^2), so if C(B,1,_) is known, that gives an O(n*k^2) algorithm to compute C(B,m,k), 1 <= m <= n. Okay for small k, but our galaxy won't live to see you calculating C(15,15,10^18) that way. So, can we do better? Well, if you're familiar with the Laplace-transformation, you'll know that an analogous transformation will convert the convolution product to a pointwise product, which is much easier to calculate. However, although the transformation is in this case easy to compute, the inverse is not. Any other idea? Why, yes, let's take a closer look at C(B,1,_).
C(B,1,k) = card { a \in A_B : (k/a) is an integer }
In other words, C(B,1,k) is the number of divisors of k not exceeding B. Let us denote that by d_B(k). It is immediately clear that 1 <= d_B(k) <= B. For B = 2, evidently d_2(k) = 1 if k is odd, 2 if k is even. d_3(k) = 3 if and only if k is divisible by 2 and by 3, hence iff k is a multiple of 6, d_3(k) = 2 if and only if one of 2, 3 divides k but not the other, that is, iff k % 6 \in {2,3,4} and finally, d_3(k) = 1 iff neither 2 nor 3 divides k, i.e. iff gcd(k,6) = 1, iff k % 6 \in {1,5}. So we've seen that d_2 is periodic with period 2, d_3 is periodic with period 6. Generally, like reasoning shows that d_B is periodic for all B, and the minimal positive period divides B!.
Given any positive period P of C(B,1,_) = d_B, we can split the sum in the convolution (k = q*P+r, 0 <= r < P):
C(B,m+1, q*P+r) = \sum_{c = 0}^{q-1} (\sum_{j = 0}^{P-1} d_B(j)*C(B,m,(q-c)*P + (r-j)))
+ \sum_{j = 0}^r d_B(j)*C(B,m,r-j)
The functions C(B,m,_) are no longer periodic for m >= 2, but there are simple formulae to obtain C(B,m,q*P+r) from C(B,m,r). Thus, with C(B,1,_) = d_B and C(B,m,_) known up to P, calculating C(B,m+1,_) up to P is an O(P^2) task², getting the data necessary for calculating C(B,m+1,k) for arbitrarily large k, needs m such convolutions, hence that's O(m*P^2).
Then finding C(B,m,k) for 1 <= m <= n and arbitrarily large k is O(n^2*P^2), in time and O(n^2*P) in space.
For B = 15, we have 15! = 1.307674368 * 10^12, so using that for P isn't feasible. Fortunately, the smallest positive period of d_15 is much smaller, so you get something workable. From a rough estimate, I would still expect the calculation of C(15,15,k) to take time more appropriately measured in hours than seconds, but it's an improvement over O(k) which would take years (for k in the region of 10^18).
¹ The convolution used here is (f \ast g)(k) = \sum_{j = 0}^k f(j)*g(k-j).
² Assuming all arithmetic operations are O(1); if, as in the OP, only the residue modulo some M > 0 is desired, that holds if all intermediate calculations are done modulo M.
Let A[1 .. n] be an array of n distinct numbers. If i < j and A[i] > A[j], then the pair (i, j) is called an inversion of A. (See Problem 2-4 for more on inversions.) Suppose that each element of A is chosen randomly, independently, and uniformly from the range 1 through n. Use indicator random variables to compute the expected number of inversions.
The problem is from exercise 5.2-5 in Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen. Here is my recursive solution:
Suppose x(i) is the number of inversions in a[1..i], and E(i) is the expected value of x(i), then E(i+1) can be computed as following:
Image we have i+1 positions to place all the numbers, if we place i+1 on the first position, then x(i+1) = i + x(i); if we place i+1 on the second position, then x(i+1) = i-1 + x(i),..., so E(i+1) = 1/(i+1)* sum(k) + E(i), where k = [0,i]. Finally we get E(i+1) = i/2 + E(i).
Because we know that E(2) = 0.5, so recursively we get: E(n) = (n-1 + n-2 + ... + 2)/2 + 0.5 = n* (n-1)/4.
Although the deduction above seems to be right, but I am still not very sure of that. So I share it here.
If there is something wrong, please correct me.
All the solutions seem to be correct, but the problem says that we should use indicator random variables. So here is my solution using the same:
Let Eij be the event that i < j and A[i] > A[j].
Let Xij = I{Eij} = {1 if (i, j) is an inversion of A
0 if (i, j) is not an inversion of A}
Let X = Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(Xij) = No. of inversions of A.
E[X] = E[Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(Xij)]
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(E[Xij])
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(P(Eij))
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=i + 1 to n)(P(Eij)) (as we must have i < j)
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=i + 1 to n)(1/2) (we can choose the two numbers in
C(n, 2) ways and arrange them
as required. So P(Eij) = C(n, 2) / n(n-1))
= Σ(i=1 to n)((n - i)/2)
= n(n - 1)/4
Another solution is even simpler, IMO, although it does not use "indicator random variables".
Since all of the numbers are distinct, every pair of elements is either an inversion (i < j with A[i] > A[j]) or a non-inversion (i < j with A[i] < A[j]). Put another way, every pair of numbers is either in order or out of order.
So for any given permutation, the total number of inversions plus non-inversions is just the total number of pairs, or n*(n-1)/2.
By symmetry of "less than" and "greater than", the expected number of inversions equals the expected number of non-inversions.
Since the expectation of their sum is n*(n-1)/2 (constant for all permutations), and they are equal, they are each half of that or n*(n-1)/4.
[Update 1]
Apparently my "symmetry of 'less than' and 'greater than'" statement requires some elaboration.
For any array of numbers A in the range 1 through n, define ~A as the array you get when you subtract each number from n+1. For example, if A is [2,3,1], then ~A is [2,1,3].
Now, observe that for any pair of numbers in A that are in order, the corresponding elements of ~A are out of order. (Easy to show because negating two numbers exchanges their ordering.) This mapping explicitly shows the symmetry (duality) between less-than and greater-than in this context.
So, for any A, the number of inversions equals the number of non-inversions in ~A. But for every possible A, there corresponds exactly one ~A; when the numbers are chosen uniformly, both A and ~A are equally likely. Therefore the expected number of inversions in A equals the expected number of inversions in ~A, because these expectations are being calculated over the exact same space.
Therefore the expected number of inversions in A equals the expected number of non-inversions. The sum of these expectations is the expectation of the sum, which is the constant n*(n-1)/2, or the total number of pairs.
[Update 2]
A simpler symmetry: For any array A of n elements, define ~A as the same elements but in reverse order. Associate the element at position i in A with the element at position n+1-i in ~A. (That is, associate each element with itself in the reversed array.)
Now any inversion in A is associated with a non-inversion in ~A, just as with the construction in Update 1 above. So the same argument applies: The number of inversions in A equals the number of inversions in ~A; both A and ~A are equally likely sequences; etc.
The point of the intuition here is that the "less than" and "greater than" operators are just mirror images of each other, which you can see either by negating the arguments (as in Update 1) or by swapping them (as in Update 2). So the expected number of inversions and non-inversions is the same, since you cannot tell whether you are looking at any particular array through a mirror or not.
Even simpler (similar to Aman's answer above, but perhaps clearer) ...
Let Xij be a random variable with Xij=1 if A[i] > A[j] and Xij=0 otherwise.
Let X=sum(Xij) over i, j where i < j
Number of pairs (ij)*: n(n-1)/2
Probability that Xij=1 (Pr(Xij=1))): 1/2
By linearity of expectation**: E(X) = E(sum(Xij))
= sum(E(Xij))
= sum(Pr(Xij=1))
= n(n-1)/2 * 1/2
= n(n-1)/4
* I think of this as the size of the upper triangle of a square matrix.
** All sums here are over i, j, where i < j.
I think it's right, but I think the proper way to prove it is to use conditionnal expectations :
for all X and Y we have : E[X] =E [E [X|Y]]
then in your case :
E(i+1) = E[x(i+1)] = E[E[x(i+1) | x(i)]] = E[SUM(k)/(1+i) + x(i)] = i/2 + E[x(i)] = i/2 + E(i)
about the second statement :
if :
E(n) = n* (n-1)/4.
then E(n+1) = (n+1)*n/4 = (n-1)*n/4 + 2*n/4 = (n-1)*n/4 + n/2 = E(n) +n/2
So n* (n-1)/4. verify the recursion relation for all n >=2 and it verifies it for n=2
So E(n) = n*(n-1)/4
Hope I understood your problem and it helps
Using indicator random variables:
Let X = random variable which is equal to the number of inversions.
Let Xij = 1 if A[i] and A[j] form an inversion pair, and Xij = 0 otherwise.
Number of inversion pairs = Sum over 1 <= i < j <= n of (Xij)
Now P[Xij = 1] = P[A[i] > A[j]] = (n choose 2) / (2! * n choose 2) = 1/2
E[X] = E[sum over all ij pairs such that i < j of Xij] = sum over all ij pairs such that i < j of E[Xij] = n(n - 1) / 4
Is there an efficient algorithm to compute the smallest integer N such that N! is divisible by p^k where p is a relatively small prime number and k, a very large integer. In other words,
factorial(N) mod p^k == 0
If, given N and p, I wanted to find how many times p divides into N!, I would use the well-known formula
k = Sum(floor(N/p^i) for i=1,2,...
I've done brute force searches for small values of k but that approach breaks down very quickly as k increases and there doesn't appear to be a pattern that I can extrapolate to larger values.
Edited 6/13/2011
Using suggestions proposed by Fiver and Hammar, I used a quasi-binary search to solve the problem but not quite in the manner they suggested. Using a truncated version of the second formula above, I computed an upper bound on N as the product of k and p (using just the first term). I used 1 as the lower bound. Using the classic binary search algorithm, I computed the midpoint between these two values and calculated what k would be using this midpoint value as N in the second formula, this time with all the terms being used.
If the computed k was too small, I adjusted the lower bound and repeated. Too big, I first tested to see if k computed at midpoint-1 was smaller than the desired k. If so, midpoint was returned as the closest N. Otherwise, I adjusted the highpoint and repeated.
If the computed k were equal, I tested whether the value at midpoint-1 was equal to the value at midpoint. If so, I adjusted the highpoint to be the midpoint and repeated. If midpoint-1 was less than the desired k, the midpoint was returned as the desired answer.
Even with very large values for k (10 or more digits), this approach works O(n log(n)) speeds.
OK this is kind of fun.
Define f(i) = (p^i - 1) / (p - 1)
Write k in a kind of funny "base" where the value of position i is this f(i).
You do this from most-significant to least-significant digit. So first, find the largest j such that f(j) <= k. Then compute the quotient and remainder of k / f(j). Store the quotient as q_j and the remainder as r. Now compute the quotient and remainder of r / f(j-1). Store the quotient as q_{j-1} and the remainder as r again. Now compute the quotient and remainder of r / f(j-2). And so on.
This generates a sequence q_j, q_{j-1}, q_{j-2}, ..., q_1. (Note that the sequence ends at 1, not 0.) Then compute q_j*p^j + q_{j-1}*p^(j-1) + ... q_1*p. That's your N.
Example: k = 9, p = 3. So f(i) = (3^i - 1) / 2. f(1) = 1, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 13. So the largest j with f(j) <= 9 is i = 2 with f(2) = 4. Take the quotient and remainder of 9 / 4. That's a quotient of 2 (which is the digit in our 2's place) and remainder of 1.
For that remainder of 1, find the quotient and remainder of 1 / f(1). Quotient is 1, remainder is zero, so we are done.
So q_2 = 2, q_1 = 1. 2*3^2 + 1*3^1 = 21, which is the right N.
I have an explanation on paper for why this works, but I am not sure how to communicate it in text... Note that f(i) answers the question, "how many factors of p are there in (p^i)!". Once you find the largest i,j such that j*f(i) is less than k, and realize what you are really doing is finding the largest j*p^i less than N, the rest kind of falls out of the wash. In our p=3 example, for instance, we get 4 p's contributed by the product of 1-9, 4 more contributed by the product of 10-18, and one more contributed by 21. Those first two are just multiples of p^2; f(2) = 4 is telling us that each multiple of p^2 contributes 4 more p's to the product.
[update]
Code always helps to clarify. Save the following perl script as foo.pl and run it as foo.pl <p> <k>. Note that ** is Perl's exponentiation operator, bdiv computes a quotient and remainder for BigInts (unlimited-precision integers), and use bigint tells Perl to use BigInts everywhere.
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use bigint;
#ARGV == 2
or die "Usage: $0 <p> <k>\n";
my ($p, $k) = map { Math::BigInt->new($_) } #ARGV;
sub f {
my $i = shift;
return ($p ** $i - 1) / ($p - 1);
}
my $j = 0;
while (f($j) <= $k) {
$j++;
}
$j--;
my $N = 0;
my $r = $k;
while ($r > 0) {
my $val = f($j);
my ($q, $new_r) = $r->bdiv($val);
$N += $q * ($p ** $j);
$r = $new_r;
$j--;
}
print "Result: $N\n";
exit 0;
Using the formula you mentioned, the sequence of k values given fixed p and N = 1,2... is non-decreasing. This means you can use a variant of binary search to find N given the desired k.
Start with N = 1, and calculate k.
Double N until k is greater or equal than your desired k to get an upper bound.
Do a binary search on the remaining interval to find your k.
Why don't you try binary search for the answer, using the second formula you mentioned?
You only need to consider values for N, for which p divides N, because if it doesn't, then N! and (N-1)! are divided by the same power of p, so N can't be the smallest one.
Consider
I = (pn)!
and ignore prime factors other than p. The result looks like
I = pn * pn-1 * pn-2 * ... * p * 1
I = pn + (n-1) + (n-2) + ... 2 + 1
I = p(n2 +n)/2
So we're trying to find the smallest n such that
(n2 +n)/2 >= k
which if I remember the quadratic equation right gives us
N = pn, where n >= (sqrt(1+8k) -1)/2
(P.S. Does anyone know how to show the radical symbol in markdown?)
EDIT:
This is wrong. Let me see if I can salvage it...