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
Related
Let's say we have some array of boolean values:
A = [0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 ... 0]
The array is constructed by performing classification on a stream of data. Each element in the array corresponds to the output of a classification algorithm given a small "chunk" of the data. An answer may include restructuring the array to make parsing more efficient.
The array is pseudo random in the sense that groups of 1's and 0's tend to exist in bunches (but not necessarily always).
Given some index, i, what is the most efficient way to find the group of at least n zeros closest to A[i]? For the easy case, take n = 1.
EDIT: Groups should have AT LEAST n zeros. Again, for the easy case, that means at least 1 zero.
EDIT2: This search will be performed o(n) times, where n is size of the array. (Specifically, its n/c, where c is some fixed duration.
In this solution I organize the data so that you can use a binary search O(log n) to find the nearest group of at least a certain size.
I first create groups of zeros from the array, then I put each group of zeros into lists containing all groups of size s or larger , so that when you want to find the nearest group of s s or more then you just run a binary search in the list that has all groups with a size of s or greater.
The downside is in the pre-processing of putting the groups into the lists, with O(n * m) (I think, please check me) time and space efficiency where n is the number of groups of zeros, and m is the max size of the groups, though in reality the efficiency is probably better.
Here is the code:
public static class Group {
final public int x1;
final public int x2;
final public int size;
public Group(int x1, int x2) {
assert x1 <= x2;
this.x1 = x1;
this.x2 = x2;
this.size = x2 - x1 + 1;
}
public static final List<Group> getGroupsOfZeros(byte[] arr) {
List<Group> listOfGroups = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i] == 0) {
int x1 = i;
for (++i; i < arr.length; i++)
if (arr[i] != 0)
break;
int x2 = i - 1;
listOfGroups.add(new Group(x1, x2));
}
}
return Collections.unmodifiableList(listOfGroups);
}
public static final Group binarySearchNearest(int i, List<Group> list) {
{ // edge cases
Group firstGroup = list.get(0);
if (i <= firstGroup.x2)
return firstGroup;
Group lastGroup = list.get(list.size() - 1);
if (i >= lastGroup.x1)
return lastGroup;
}
int lo = 0;
int hi = list.size() - 1;
while (lo <= hi) {
int mid = (hi + lo) / 2;
Group currGroup = list.get(mid);
if (i < currGroup.x1) {
hi = mid - 1;
} else if (i > currGroup.x2) {
lo = mid + 1;
} else {
// x1 <= i <= x2
return currGroup;
}
}
// intentionally swapped because: lo == hi + 1
Group lowGroup = list.get(hi);
Group highGroup = list.get(lo);
return (i - lowGroup.x2) < (highGroup.x1 - i) ? lowGroup : highGroup;
}
}
NOTE: GroupsBySize can be improved, as described by #maraca to only contain a list of Groups per each distinct group size. I'll update tomorrow.
public static class GroupsBySize {
private List<List<Group>> listOfGroupsBySize = new ArrayList<>();
public GroupsBySize(List<Group> groups) {
for (Group group : groups) {
// ensure internal array can groups up to this size
while (listOfGroupsBySize.size() < group.size) {
listOfGroupsBySize.add(new ArrayList<Group>());
}
// add group to all lists up to its size
for (int i = 0; i < group.size; i++) {
listOfGroupsBySize.get(i).add(group);
}
}
}
public final Group getNearestGroupOfAtLeastSize(int index, int atLeastSize) {
if (atLeastSize < 1)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("group size must be greater than 0");
List<Group> groupsOfAtLeastSize = listOfGroupsBySize.get(atLeastSize - 1);
return Group.binarySearchNearest(index, groupsOfAtLeastSize);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
byte[] byteArray = null;
List<Group> groups = Group.getGroupsOfZeros(byteArray);
GroupsBySize groupsBySize = new GroupsBySize(groups);
int index = 12;
int atLeastSize = 5;
Group g = groupsBySize.getNearestGroupOfAtLeastSize(index, atLeastSize);
System.out.println("nearest group is (" + g.x1 + ":" + g.x2 + ") of size " + g.size);
}
If you have n queries on an array of size n, then the naive approach would take O(n^2) time.
You can optimize this by incorporating the observation that the number of distinct group sizes is in the order of sqrt(n), because the most distinct group sizes we get if we have one group of size 1, one of size 2, one of size 3 and so on, we know that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n is n * (n + 1) / 2, so in the order of n^2, but the array has size n, so the number of distinct group sizes is in the order of sqrt(n).
create an integer array of size n to denote which group sizes are present how many times
create a list for the 0-groups, each element should contain the group size and starting index
scan the array, add the 0-groups to the list and update the present group sizes
create an array for the different group sizes, each entry should contain the group size and an array with the start indices of the groups
create an integer array or a map which tells you which group size is at which index by scanning the array of the present group sizes
go through the list of 0-groups and fill the start index arrays created at 4.
We end up with an array which takes O(n) space, takes O(n) time to create and contains all present group sizes in order, additionally each entry has an array with the start indices of the groups of that size.
To answer a query we can do a binary search on the start indices of all groups greater or equal than the given minimum group size. This takes O(log(n)*sqrt(n)) and we do it n times, so over all it would take O(n*log(n)*sqrt(n)) = O(n^1.5*log(n)) which is better than O(n^2).
I think you can get it down to O(n^1.5) by creating a structure which has all distinct group sizes but contains not only the groups of that size, but also the groups that are bigger than that size. This would be the time complexity to create the structure and answering all the n queries would be faster O(n*log(sqrt(n))*log(n)) I think, so it doesn't matter.
example:
[0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0, 1, 0, 0] -- 0 indexed array
hashmap = {1:[0], 2:[15, 18], 7:[5]}
search(i = 7, n = 2) {
binary search in {2:[15, 18], 7:[5]}
return min(15, 5)
}
what is the most efficient way to find the group of at least n zeros closest to A[i]
If we are not limited in preprocessing time and resources, the most efficient way would seem to be O(1) time and O(n * sqrt n) space, storing the answers to all possible queries. (To accomplish that, run the algorithm below with a list of all possible queries, that is each distinct zero-group size in the array paired with each index.)
If we are provided with all the n / c queries at once, we can produce the complete result set in O(n log n) time.
Traverse once from the left and once from the right. For each traversal, start with a balanced binary tree with our queries, sorted by zero-group-size (the n in the query), where each node has a sorted list of the query indexes (all is with this particular n).
At each iteration, when a zero-group is registered, update all queries with n equal and lower than this zero-group size, removing all equal and lower indexes from the node and keeping the records for them (since the index list is sorted, we just remove the head of the list while it's equal or lower than the current index), and storing the current index of the zero-group in the node as well (the "last seen" zero-group-index). If no is are left in the node, remove it.
After the traversal, assign each node's "last seen" zero-group-index to any remaining is in that node. Now we have all the answers for this traversal. (Any queries left in the tree have no answer.) In the opposite traversal, if any query comes up with a better (closer) answer, update it in the final record.
I want to make a program that will give me 4 random numbers in the range 1 - 20 without any of them being the same. It does give me 4 different random numbers but every couple of tries 2 numbers are the same. I don't want that.
Here's my code:
int main(){
int g;
srand(time(0));
start:;
scanf("%d",&g);
switch(g){
case 1:RNG_4_10();
break;
default:exit(0);
break;
}
goto start;
}
int RNG_4_10(){
int a,n,i,c;
for(c=0;c<10;c++){
printf("\n");
for(i=0;i<4;i++){
a = (rand() % 20 + 1); //give a random value to a;
n = a; //assign n the value of a;
while(a == n){
a = rand() % 20 + 1;
}
printf("%d\t",a);
}
}
}
Also, I know that RNG's have a probability of repeating numbers and in theory they could generate the same number for infinity, but what I don't get is how can I have 2 similar numbers on the same run. I added that while to avoid that. Is this code wrong or my understanding is awful?
Most random number generators will have a probability of repeating values. If they didn't their behaviour would be less random by various measures.
If you want four random values in the range 1-20, then create an array of 20 elements with all those values, and shuffle it with the help of your random number generator. Then pick the first four values.
A common technique to shuffle is (in pseudocode)
/* shuffle an array of n elements */
for (i = n-1; i > 0; --i)
{
swap(array[i], array[gen(n)]); /* zero-based array indexing */
}
where gen(n) returns a suitably random value with values between 0 and n-1, possibly with repetition.
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.
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;
}
}
How can we find a repeated number in array in O(n) time and O(1) complexity?
eg
array 2,1,4,3,3,10
output is 3
EDIT:
I tried in following way.
i found that if no is oddly repeated then we can achieve the result by doing xor . so i thought to make the element which is odd no repeating to even no and every evenly repeating no to odd.but for that i need to find out unique element array from input array in O(n) but couldn't find the way.
Assuming that there is an upped bound for the values of the numbers in the array (which is the case with all built-in integer types in all programming languages I 've ever used -- for example, let's say they are 32-bit integers) there is a solution that uses constant space:
Create an array of N elements, where N is the upper bound for the integer values in the input array and initialize all elements to 0 or false or some equivalent. I 'll call this the lookup array.
Loop over the input array, and use each number to index into the lookup array. If the value you find is 1 or true (etc), the current number in the input array is a duplicate.
Otherwise, set the corresponding value in the lookup array to 1 or true to remember that we have seen this particular input number.
Technically, this is O(n) time and O(1) space, and it does not destroy the input array. Practically, you would need things to be going your way to have such a program actually run (e.g. it's out of the question if talking about 64-bit integers in the input).
Without knowing more about the possible values in the array you can't.
With O(1) space requirement the fastest way is to sort the array so it's going to be at least O(n*log(n)).
Use Bit manipulation ... traverse the list in one loop.
Check if the mask is 1 by shifting the value from i.
If so print out repeated value i.
If the value is unset, set it.
*If you only want to show one repeated values once, add another integer show and set its bits as well like in the example below.
**This is in java, I'm not sure we will reach it, but you might want to also add a check using Integer.MAX_VALUE.
public static void repeated( int[] vals ) {
int mask = 0;
int show = 0;
for( int i : vals ) {
// get bit in mask
if( (( mask >> i ) & 1) == 1 &&
(( show >> i ) & 1) == 0 )
{
System.out.println( "\n\tfound: " + i );
show = show | (1 << i);
}
// set mask if not found
else
{
mask = mask | (1 << i);
System.out.println( "new: " + i );
}
System.out.println( "mask: " + mask );
}
}
This is impossible without knowing any restricted rules about the input array, either that the Memory complexity would have some dependency on the input size or that the time complexity is gonna be higher.
The 2 answers above are infact the best answers for getting near what you have asked, one's trade off is Time where the second trade off is in Memory, but you cant have it run in O(n) time and O(1) complexity in SOME UNKNOWN INPUT ARRAY.
I met the problem too and my solution is using hashMap .The python version is the following:
def findRepeatNumber(lists):
hashMap = {}
for i in xrange(len(lists)):
if lists[i] in hashMap:
return lists[i]
else:
hashMap[lists[i]]=i+1
return
It is possible only if you have a specific data. Eg all numbers are of a small range. Then you could store repeat info in the source array not affecting the whole scanning and analyzing process.
Simplified example: You know that all the numbers are smaller than 100, then you can mark repeat count for a number using extra zeroes, like put 900 instead of 9 when 9 is occurred twice.
It is easy when NumMax-NumMin
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/find-the-maximum-repeating-number-in-ok-time/
public static string RepeatedNumber()
{
int[] input = {66, 23, 34, 0, 5, 4};
int[] indexer = {0,0,0,0,0,0}
var found = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < input.Length; i++)
{
var toFind = input[i];
for (int j = 0; j < input.Length; j++)
{
if (input[j] == toFind && (indexer[j] == 1))
{
found = input[j];
}
else if (input[j] == toFind)
{
indexer[j] = 1;
}
}
}
return $"most repeated item in the array is {found}";
}
You can do this
#include<iostream.h>
#include<conio.h>
#include<stdio.h>
void main ()
{
clrscr();
int array[5],rep=0;
for(int i=1; i<=5; i++)
{
cout<<"enter elements"<<endl;
cin>>array[i];
}
for(i=1; i<=5; i++)
{
if(array[i]==array[i+1])
{
rep=array[i];
}
}
cout<<" repeat value is"<<rep;
getch();
}