I have a question i want to create postorder from inorder and preorder, but i don't wana use reconstruction of tree, i want only recursive do this. I code this, and at this moment, i have a part of, right side of tree in preorder( First char in preorder is root, i find this in inorder, and i have left and right side, i recurency translate to right side), but i have a problem with left side of tree. I don't have no idea to do this. Can someone give me some of suggestion or code ? Please help :)
public static String a(String pre, String in, int start, int end) {
char c = pre.charAt(start); //first char in preorder is root
int ix = find(pre, in, c); // if we find this char in inorder translation we know where is left and right side of tree
stack += c;
if (start == 0 && flaga == true) {
left = pre.substring(1, ix + 1);
right = pre.substring(ix + 1, end);
flaga = false;
return a(right, in, 0, end);
}
String reverse = new StringBuffer(stos).reverse().toString();
//stack to see
// System.out.println("STACK " + stos);
if (start < right.length()-1) {
return a(right, in, start + 1, end - 1);
}
return "";
}
public static int find(String a, String b, char c) {
int b_l = b.length();
for (int i = 0; i < b_l; ++i)
if (b.charAt(i) == c)
return i;
return -1;
First Test :
String pre = "FBADCEGIH";
String inorder = "ABCDEFGHI";
ANswer should be : //A, C, E, D, B, H, I, G, F
My problem is with left side of tree, i don't have any idea to do this correct, and i'm not sure my code work for all situation of preorder and inorder.
Related
I'm looking at this question on leetcode. Given two arrays, inorder and preorder, you need to construct a binary tree. I get the general solution of the question.
Preorder traversal visits root, left, and right, so the left child would be current preorder node index + 1. From that value, you can then know how many nodes are on the left of the tree using the inorder array. In the answers, the formula used to get the right child is "preStart + inIndex - inStart + 1".
I don't want to memorize the formula so I'm wondering if there is a proof for this? I went through the discussion board there, but I'm still missing a link.
For Python Only
In Python we can also use pop(0) for solving this problem, even though that's inefficient (it would pass though).
For inefficiency we can likely use deque() with popleft(), however not on LeetCode, because we don't have control over the tree.
class Solution:
def buildTree(self, preorder, inorder):
if inorder:
index = inorder.index(preorder.pop(0))
root = TreeNode(inorder[index])
root.left = self.buildTree(preorder, inorder[:index])
root.right = self.buildTree(preorder, inorder[index + 1:])
return root
For Java and C++, that'd be a bit different just like you said (don't have the proof) but maybe this post would be just a bit helpful:
public class Solution {
public static final TreeNode buildTree(
final int[] preorder,
final int[] inorder
) {
return traverse(0, 0, inorder.length - 1, preorder, inorder);
}
private static final TreeNode traverse(
final int preStart,
final int inStart,
final int atEnd,
final int[] preorder,
final int[] inorder
) {
if (preStart > preorder.length - 1 || inStart > atEnd) {
return null;
}
TreeNode root = new TreeNode(preorder[preStart]);
int inorderIndex = 0;
for (int i = inStart; i <= atEnd; i++)
if (inorder[i] == root.val) {
inorderIndex = i;
}
root.left = traverse(preStart + 1, inStart, inorderIndex - 1, preorder, inorder);
root.right = traverse(preStart + inorderIndex - inStart + 1, inorderIndex + 1, atEnd, preorder, inorder);
return root;
}
}
C++
// The following block might slightly improve the execution time;
// Can be removed;
static const auto __optimize__ = []() {
std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
std::cin.tie(nullptr);
std::cout.tie(nullptr);
return 0;
}();
// Most of headers are already included;
// Can be removed;
#include <cstdint>
#include <vector>
#include <unordered_map>
using ValueType = int;
static const struct Solution {
TreeNode* buildTree(
std::vector<ValueType>& preorder,
std::vector<ValueType>& inorder
) {
std::unordered_map<ValueType, ValueType> inorder_indices;
for (ValueType index = 0; index < std::size(inorder); ++index) {
inorder_indices[inorder[index]] = index;
}
return build(preorder, inorder, inorder_indices, 0, 0, std::size(inorder) - 1);
}
private:
TreeNode* build(
std::vector<ValueType>& preorder,
std::vector<ValueType>& inorder,
std::unordered_map<ValueType, ValueType>& inorder_indices,
ValueType pre_start,
ValueType in_start,
ValueType in_end
) {
if (pre_start >= std::size(preorder) || in_start > in_end) {
return nullptr;
}
TreeNode* root = new TreeNode(preorder[pre_start]);
ValueType pre_index = inorder_indices[preorder[pre_start]];
root->left = build(preorder, inorder, inorder_indices, pre_start + 1, in_start, pre_index - 1);
root->right = build(preorder, inorder, inorder_indices, pre_start + 1 + pre_index - in_start, pre_index + 1, in_end);
return root;
}
};
I was trying to familarize with the question of creating a tree given inorder and postorder traversal. I wrote the following code, but some thing is going wrong which i was unable to find out. Can someone help me on this?
Sample i/p :
int in[] = {4,10,3,1,7,11,8,2};
int post[] = {4,1,3,10,11,8,2,7};
public static TreeNode buildInorderPostorder( int post[], int n, int offset,Map<Integer,Integer> indexMap,int size) {
if (size <= 0) return null;
int rootVal = post[n-1];
int i = (indexMap.get(rootVal) - offset);
TreeNode root = new TreeNode(rootVal);
root.setLeft(buildInorderPostorder( post, i, offset,indexMap,i-offset));
root.setRight(buildInorderPostorder(post, n-1, offset+i,indexMap,n-1-i));
return root;
}
root.setRight seems to be wrong.offset shouldn't be offset+i, it should be offset+i+1:
root.setRight(buildInorderPostorder(post, n-1, offset+i+1,indexMap,n-1-i));
This question might have been asked by a lot of guys but, it is kinda different. We have a binary tree. And you are given two nodes p & q. We have to find the least common parent. But you dont have root node pointer which points to the root. You are provided with two inbuilt functions which are:
1) BOOL same(node *p, node *q); -> returns true if the nodes are same or else false.
2) node* parentNode(node *c); -> returns a node which is the parent of the current node.
If the node c is actually root then parentNode function will return you with aNULL value.
Using the functions we have to find the least common parent of the tree.
Step1: Using parentNode function find the distance d1 of the node p from root. similarly find distance d2 of node q from the root. (say, d2 comes out ot be greater than d1)
Step 2: Move the farther node(whose ever d-value was greater) pointer d2-d1 steps towards root.
Step3: Simultaneously move pointers p and q towards root till they point to same node and return that node.
Basically it will be like finding the merge point of two linked-lists. Check the below link:
Check if two linked lists merge. If so, where?
Time complexity: O(N)
Your code would look somewhat along the lines:
node* LCP(node* p, node *q){
int d1=0, d2=0;
for(node* t= p; t; t = parentNode(p), ++d1);
for(node* t= q; t; t = parentNode(q), ++d2);
if(d1>d2){
swap(d1, d2);
swap(p, q);
}
for(int i=0; i<(d2-d1); ++i)
q = parentNode(q);
if( same(p, q)){
return parentNode(p);
}
while( !same(p, q)){
p = parentNode(p);
q = parentNode(q);
}
return p;
}
Assuming C++:
node* leastCommonParent(node *p, node *q)
{
node *pParent = parentNode(p);
while(pParent != 0)
{
node *qParent = parentNode(q);
while(qParent != 0)
{
if (0 == same(pParent, qParent))
return pParent;
qParent = parentNode(qParent);
}
pParent = parentNode(pParent);
}
return 0;
}
UPDATE: A version without explicitly declared variables using recursion follows. I'm sure it can be improved and would probably never use it in production code in the current form.
node* qParent(node *p, node *q)
{
if (p == 0 || q == 0)
return 0;
if (same(p, q) == 0)
return p;
return qParent(p, q->parent);
}
node* pParent(node *p, node *q)
{
return qParent(p, q) ? qParent(p, q) : pParent(p->parent, q);
}
node * result = pParent(p, q);
Three types of tree traversals are inorder, preorder, and post order.
A fourth, less often used, traversal is level-order traversal. In a
level-order traveresal, all nodes at depth "d" are processed before
any node at depth d + 1. Level-order traversal differs from the other
traversals in that it is not done recursively; a queue is used,
instead of the implied stack of recursion.
My questions on above text snippet are
Why level order traversals are not done recursively?
How queue is used in level order traversal? Request clarification with Pseudo code will be helpful.
Thanks!
Level order traversal is actually a BFS, which is not recursive by nature. It uses Queue instead of Stack to hold the next vertices that should be opened. The reason for it is in this traversal, you want to open the nodes in a FIFO order, instead of a LIFO order, obtained by recursion
as I mentioned, the level order is actually a BFS, and its [BFS] pseudo code [taken from wikipedia] is:
1 procedure BFS(Graph,source):
2 create a queue Q
3 enqueue source onto Q
4 mark source
5 while Q is not empty:
6 dequeue an item from Q into v
7 for each edge e incident on v in Graph:
8 let w be the other end of e
9 if w is not marked:
10 mark w
11 enqueue w onto Q
(*) in a tree, marking the vertices is not needed, since you cannot get to the same node in 2 different paths.
void levelorder(Node *n)
{ queue < Node * >q;
q.push(n);
while(!q.empty())
{
Node *node = q.front();
cout<<node->value;
q.pop();
if(node->left != NULL)
q.push(node->left);
if (node->right != NULL)
q.push(node->right);
}
}
Instead of a queue, I used a map to solve this. Take a look, if you are interested. As I do a postorder traversal, I maintain the depth at which each node is positioned and use this depth as the key in a map to collect values in the same level
class Solution {
public:
map<int, vector<int> > levelValues;
void recursivePrint(TreeNode *root, int depth){
if(root == NULL)
return;
if(levelValues.count(root->val) == 0)
levelValues.insert(make_pair(depth, vector<int>()));
levelValues[depth].push_back(root->val);
recursivePrint(root->left, depth+1);
recursivePrint(root->right, depth+1);
}
vector<vector<int> > levelOrder(TreeNode *root) {
recursivePrint(root, 1);
vector<vector<int> > result;
for(map<int,vector<int> >::iterator it = levelValues.begin(); it!= levelValues.end(); ++it){
result.push_back(it->second);
}
return result;
}
};
The entire solution can be found here - http://ideone.com/zFMGKU
The solution returns a vector of vectors with each inner vector containing the elements in the tree in the correct order.
you can try solving it here - https://oj.leetcode.com/problems/binary-tree-level-order-traversal/
And, as you can see, we can also do this recursively in the same time and space complexity as the queue solution!
My questions on above text snippet are
Why level order traversals are not done recursively?
How queue is used in level order traversal? Request clarification with Pseudo code will be helpful.
I think it'd actually be easier to start with the second question. Once you understand the answer to the second question, you'll be better prepared to understand the answer to the first.
How level order traversal works
I think the best way to understand how level order traversal works is to go through the execution step by step, so let's do that.
We have a tree.
We want to traverse it level by level.
So, the order that we'd visit the nodes would be A B C D E F G.
To do this, we use a queue. Remember, queues are first in, first out (FIFO). I like to imagine that the nodes are waiting in line to be processed by an attendant.
Let's start by putting the first node A into the queue.
Ok. Buckle up. The setup is over. We're about to start diving in.
The first step is to take A out of the queue so it can be processed. But wait! Before we do so, let's put A's children, B and C, into the queue also.
Note: A isn't actually in the queue anymore at this point. I grayed it out to try to communicate this. If I removed it completely from the diagram, it'd make it harder to visualize what's happening later on in the story.
Note: A is being processed by the attendant at the desk in the diagram. In real life, processing a node can mean a lot of things. Using it to compute a sum, send an SMS, log to the console, etc, etc. Going off the metaphor in my diagram, you can tell the attendant how you want them to process the node.
Now we move on to the node that is next in line. In this case, B.
We do the same thing that we did with A: 1) add the children to the line, and 2) process the node.
Hey, check it out! It looks like what we're doing here is going to get us that level order traversal that we were looking for! Let's prove this to ourselves by continuing the step through.
Once we finish with B, C is next in line. We place C's children at the back of the line, and then process C.
Now let's see what happens next. D is next in line. D doesn't have any children, so we don't place anything at the back of the line. We just process D.
And then it's the same thing for E, F, and G.
Why it's not done recursively
Imagine what would happen if we used a stack instead of a queue. Let's rewind to the point where we had just visited A.
Here's how it'd look if we were using a stack.
Now, instead of going "in order", this new attendant likes to serve the most recent clients first, not the ones who have been waiting the longest. So C is who is up next, not B.
Here's where the key point is. Where the stack starts to cause a different processing order than we had with the queue.
Like before, we add C's children and then process C. We're just adding them to a stack instead of a queue this time.
Now, what's next? This new attendant likes to serve the most recent clients first (ie. we're using a stack), so G is up next.
I'll stop the execution here. The point is that something as simple as replacing the queue with a stack actually gives us a totally different execution order. I'd encourage you to finish the step through though.
You might be thinking: "Ok... but the question asked about recursion. What does this have to do with recursion?" Well, when you use recursion, something sneaky is going on. You never did anything with a stack data structure like s = new Stack(). However, the runtime uses the call stack. This ends up being conceptually similar to what I did above, and thus doesn't give us that A B C D E F G ordering we were looking for from level order traversal.
https://github.com/arun2pratap/data-structure/blob/master/src/main/java/com/ds/tree/binarytree/BinaryTree.java
for complete can look out for the above link.
public void levelOrderTreeTraversal(List<Node<T>> nodes){
if(nodes == null || nodes.isEmpty()){
return;
}
List<Node<T>> levelNodes = new ArrayList<>();
nodes.stream().forEach(node -> {
if(node != null) {
System.out.print(" " + node.value);
levelNodes.add(node.left);
levelNodes.add(node.right);
}
});
System.out.println("");
levelOrderTreeTraversal(levelNodes);
}
Also can check out
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/
here you will find Almost all Data Structure related answers.
Level order traversal implemented by queue
# class TreeNode:
# def __init__(self, val=0, left=None, right=None):
# self.val = val
# self.left = left
# self.right = right
def levelOrder(root: TreeNode) -> List[List[int]]:
res = [] # store the node value
queue = [root]
while queue:
node = queue.pop()
# visit the node
res.append(node.val)
if node.left:
queue.insert(0, node.left)
if node.right:
queue.insert(0, node.right)
return res
Recursive implementation is also possible. However, it needs to know the max depth of the root in advance.
def levelOrder(root: TreeNode) -> List[int]:
res = []
max_depth = maxDepth(root)
for i in range(max_depth):
# level start from 0 to max_depth-1
visitLevel(root, i, action)
return res
def visitLevel(root:TreeNode, level:int, res: List):
if not root:
return
if level==0:
res.append(node.val)
else:
self.visitLevel(root.left, level-1, res)
self.visitLevel(root.right, level-1, res)
def maxDepth(root: TreeNode) -> int:
if not root:
return 0
if not root.left and not root.right:
return 1
return max([ maxDepth(root.left), maxDepth(root.right)]) + 1
For your point 1) we can use Java below code for level order traversal in recursive order, we have not used any library function for tree, all are user defined tree and tree specific functions -
class Node
{
int data;
Node left, right;
public Node(int item)
{
data = item;
left = right = null;
}
boolean isLeaf() { return left == null ? right == null : false; }
}
public class BinaryTree {
Node root;
Queue<Node> nodeQueue = new ConcurrentLinkedDeque<>();
public BinaryTree() {
root = null;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
BinaryTree tree = new BinaryTree();
tree.root = new Node(1);
tree.root.left = new Node(2);
tree.root.right = new Node(3);
tree.root.left.left = new Node(4);
tree.root.left.right = new Node(5);
tree.root.right.left = new Node(6);
tree.root.right.right = new Node(7);
tree.root.right.left.left = new Node(8);
tree.root.right.left.right = new Node(9);
tree.printLevelOrder();
}
/*Level order traversal*/
void printLevelOrder() {
int h = height(root);
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= h; i++)
printGivenLevel(root, i);
System.out.println("\n");
}
void printGivenLevel(Node root, int level) {
if (root == null)
return;
if (level == 1)
System.out.print(root.data + " ");
else if (level > 1) {
printGivenLevel(root.left, level - 1);
printGivenLevel(root.right, level - 1);
}
}
/*Height of Binary tree*/
int height(Node root) {
if (root == null)
return 0;
else {
int lHeight = height(root.left);
int rHeight = height(root.right);
if (lHeight > rHeight)
return (lHeight + 1);
else return (rHeight + 1);
}
}
}
For your point 2) If you want to use non recursive function then you can use queue as below function-
public void levelOrder_traversal_nrec(Node node){
System.out.println("Level order traversal !!! ");
if(node == null){
System.out.println("Tree is empty");
return;
}
nodeQueue.add(node);
while (!nodeQueue.isEmpty()){
node = nodeQueue.remove();
System.out.printf("%s ",node.data);
if(node.left !=null)
nodeQueue.add(node.left);
if (node.right !=null)
nodeQueue.add(node.right);
}
System.out.println("\n");
}
Recursive Solution in C++
/**
* Definition for a binary tree node.
* struct TreeNode {
* int val;
* TreeNode *left;
* TreeNode *right;
* TreeNode() : val(0), left(nullptr), right(nullptr) {}
* TreeNode(int x) : val(x), left(nullptr), right(nullptr) {}
* TreeNode(int x, TreeNode *left, TreeNode *right) : val(x), left(left), right(right) {}
* };
*/
class Solution {
public:
vector<vector<int>> levels;
void helper(TreeNode* node,int level)
{
if(levels.size() == level) levels.push_back({});
levels[level].push_back(node->val);
if(node->left)
helper(node->left,level+1);
if(node->right)
helper(node->right,level+1);
}
vector<vector<int>> levelOrder(TreeNode* root) {
if(!root) return levels;
helper(root,0);
return levels;
}
};
We can use queue to solve this problem in less time complexity. Here is the solution of level order traversal suing Java.
class Solution {
public List<List<Integer>> levelOrder(TreeNode root) {
List<List<Integer>> levelOrderTraversal = new ArrayList<List<Integer>>();
List<Integer> currentLevel = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Queue<TreeNode> queue = new LinkedList<TreeNode>();
if(root != null)
{
queue.add(root);
queue.add(null);
}
while(!queue.isEmpty())
{
TreeNode queueRoot = queue.poll();
if(queueRoot != null)
{
currentLevel.add(queueRoot.val);
if(queueRoot.left != null)
{
queue.add(queueRoot.left);
}
if(queueRoot.right != null)
{
queue.add(queueRoot.right);
}
}
else
{
levelOrderTraversal.add(currentLevel);
if(!queue.isEmpty())
{
currentLevel = new ArrayList<Integer>();
queue.add(null);
}
}
}
return levelOrderTraversal;
}
}
How to count the number of right children in a binary tree?
This means that I only want the children marked as right.
Ex.
(Left | Right)
F(Root)
G | H
T U | I J
The right children would be U,H,and J.
What would be the algorithm to find these.
int count(Tree *r){
if(r == NULL) return 0;
int num_l=0, num_r=0;
if(r->left != NULL)
num_l = count(r->left);
if(r->right != NULL)
num_r = count(r->right)+1;
return num_l+num_r
}
In recursive approach,
You would be calling a function to traverse your tree,
for current node, you need to:
check if current node has right child (then increment the counter), and then call the function recursively for right node.
check if current node has left child, call the function recursively for left node.
This should work.
Do a simple traversal on the tree (i.e. post order, in order) and for each node do +1 if it has right child.
Example (didn't try to compile and check it):
int countRightChildren(Node root)
{
if (root == null) return 0;
int selfCount = (root.getRightChild() != null) ? 1 : 0;
return selfCount + countRightChildren(root.getLeftChild()) + countRightChildren(root.getRightChild());
}
You can do it recursively as:
If tree does not exist, there are no
R children.
If tree exists, then # R children = #
R children in R-subtree + # R
children in L-subtree
.
int countRChildren(Node *root) {
if(!root) // tree does not exist.
return 0;
// tree exists...now see if R node exits or not.
if(root->right) // right node exist
// return 1 + # of R children in L/R subtree.
return 1 + countRChildren(root->right) + countRChildren(root->left);
else // right nodes does not exist.
// total count of R children will come from left subtree.
return countRChildren(root->left);
}
This is include how i build the struct
struct Item
{
int info;
struct Item* right;
struct Item* left;
};
typedef struct Item* Node;
int countRightSons(Node tree)
{
if(!tree)
return 0;
if(tree->right != NULL)
return 1 + countRightSons(tree->right) + countRightSons(tree->left);
return countRightSons(tree->left);
}
Simple recursive approach,
check (even if not needed) for all the 4 possibilities:
left and right does not exists
left and right exists
left exists and right doesnt
right exists and left doesnt
public static int countRightChildren(BST tree) {
if (tree.root==null) return Integer.MIN_VALUE;
return countRightChildren(tree.root);}
public static int countRightChildren(Node curr) {
if (curr.right==null&&curr.left==null) return 0;
else if (curr.right!=null&&curr.left==null)
return curr.right.data+countRightChildren(curr.right);
else if (curr.right==null&&curr.left!=null)
return countRightChildren(curr.left);
else if (curr.right!=null&&curr.left!=null)
return curr.right.data+countRightChildren(curr.left)+countRightChildren(curr.right);
return Integer.MIN_VALUE;
}