the logic behind this was (n-2)3^(n-3) has lots of repetitons like (abc)***(abc) when abc is at start and at end and the strings repated total to 3^4 . similarly as abc moves ahead and number of sets of (abc) increase
You can use dynamic programming to compute the number of forbidden strings.
The algorithms follow from the observation below:
"Legal string of size n is the legal string of size n - 1 extended with one letter, so that the last three letters of the resulting string are not all distinct."
So if we had all the legal strings of size n-1 we could try extending them to obtain the legal strings of size n.
To check whether the extended string is legal we just need to know the last two letters of the previous string (of size n-1).
In the algorithm we will compute two arrays, where
different[i] # number of legal strings of length i in which last two letters are different
same[i] # number of legal strings of length i in which last two letters are the same
It can be easily proved that:
different[i+1] = different[i] + 2*same[i]
same[i+1] = different[i] + same[i]
It is the consequence of the following facts:
Any 'same' string of size i+1 can be obtained either from 'same' string of size i (think BB -> BBB) or from 'different' string (think AB -> ABB) and these are the only options.
Any 'different' string of size i+1 can be obtained either from 'different' string of size i (think AB-> ABA ) or from the 'same' string in two ways (AA -> AAB or AA -> AAC)
Having observed all this it is easy to write an algorithm that computes the result in O(n) time.
I suggest you use recursion, and look at two numbers:
F(n), the number of legal strings of length n whose last two symbols are the same.
G(n), the number of legal strings of length n whose last two symbols are different.
Is that enough to go on?
get the ASCII values of the last three letters and add the square values of these letters. If it gives a certain result, then it is forbidden. For A, B and C, it would be fine.
To do this:
1) find out how to get characters from your string.
2) find out how to get ASCII value of a character.
3) Multiply these ASCII values with themselves.
4) Do that for the three letters each time and add their values.
Related
I'm working on the LCS problem using dynamic programming. I'm having trouble deriving the DP solution myself without looking at the solution.
I currently reason that given two strings, P and Q:
We can enumerate through all subsequences of P, which is of size 2^n.
We can also enumerate through all subsequences of Q, which is of size 2^m.
So, if we want to check for shared subsequences, the run time would be O(2^n * 2^m) or O(2^(n+m)).
I don't understand how we can go from this brute force solution to the dynamic programming solution. What's the logic for deriving the subsolution table?
I just don't understand how we can jump straight to the subsolution table for DP from this point. What's the logic for doing that?
I understand that we need to identify overlapping subsolutions. But I can't find a good explanation for identifying this then going onto the subsolution table.
Let me know if this question makes sense.
Here's the basic idea that creates the magic for this algorithm.
Consider 2 strings S1 and S2,
S1 = c1,c2,c3,........cm, length = m
and
S2 = b1,b2,b3,........bn, length = n
Say you have a function LCS(arg1,arg2), where
arg1 = S1,m , string S1 of length of m
and
arg2 = S2,n , string S2 of length of n
and LCS(arg1,arg2) will give us the length of longest common subsequence for the 2 arguments.
Now suppose that the last character of both strings is same.
bn = cm
And suppose no other two charcters is same. This means that:
LCS(arg1,arg2) = 1(last character) + 0(remaining strings)
Now if you have understood the above equation, its clear that if instead of no other two characters matching we do have something matching(in the remaining strings) then:
LCS(arg1,arg2) = 1(last character) + LCS(arg1 - cm,arg2 - bn)(Remaining strings)
But if last two chars do not match, then definitely we have to consider the second last 2 characters in each string and thats why we have the following when the last 2 characters does not match:
LCS(arg1,arg2) = max(LCS(arg1 - cm,arg2) , LCS(arg1 ,arg2 - bn))
Suppose I have a list of N strings, known at compile-time.
I want to generate (at compile-time) a function that will map each string to a distinct integer between 1 and N inclusive. The function should take very little time or space to execute.
For example, suppose my strings are:
{"apple", "orange", "banana"}
Such a function may return:
f("apple") -> 2
f("orange") -> 1
f("banana") -> 3
What's a strategy to generate this function?
I was thinking to analyze the strings at compile time and look for a couple of constants I could mod or add by or something?
The compile-time generation time/space can be quite expensive (but obviously not ridiculously so).
Say you have m distinct strings, and let ai, j be the jth character of the ith string. In the following, I'll assume that they all have the same length. This can be easily translated into any reasonable programming language by treating ai, j as the null character if j ≥ |ai|.
The idea I suggest is composed of two parts:
Find (at most) m - 1 positions differentiating the strings, and store these positions.
Create a perfect hash function by considering the strings as length-m vectors, and storing the parameters of the perfect hash function.
Obviously, in general, the hash function must check at least m - 1 positions. It's easy to see this by induction. For 2 strings, at least 1 character must be checked. Assume it's true for i strings: i - 1 positions must be checked. Create a new set of strings by appending 0 to the end of each of the i strings, and add a new string that is identical to one of the strings, except it has a 1 at the end.
Conversely, it's obvious that it's possible to find at most m - 1 positions sufficient for differentiating the strings (for some sets the number of course might be lower, as low as log to the base of the alphabet size of m). Again, it's easy to see so by induction. Two distinct strings must differ at some position. Placing the strings in a matrix with m rows, there must be some column where not all characters are the same. Partitioning the matrix into two or more parts, and applying the argument recursively to each part with more than 2 rows, shows this.
Say the m - 1 positions are p1, ..., pm - 1. In the following, recall the meaning above for ai, pj for pj ≥ |ai|: it is the null character.
let us define h(ai) = ∑j = 1m - 1[qj ai, pj % n], for random qj and some n. Then h is known to be a universal hash function: the probability of pair-collision P(x ≠ y ∧ h(x) = h(y)) ≤ 1/n.
Given a universal hash function, there are known constructions for creating a perfect hash function from it. Perhaps the simplest is creating a vector of size m2 and successively trying the above h with n = m2 with randomized coefficients, until there are no collisions. The number of attempts needed until this is achieved, is expected 2 and the probability that more attempts are needed, decreases exponentially.
It is simple. Make a dictionary and assign 1 to the first word, 2 to the second, ... No need to make things complicated, just number your words.
To make the lookup effective, use trie or binary search or whatever tool your language provides.
I am trying to find the best (realistic) algorithm for solving a cryptography challenge, in which:
the given cipher text C is made of about 6000 characters taken in the set S={A,B,C,...,Y,a,b,c,...y}. So |S| = 50.
the encryption scheme does not allow to have two identical adjacent characters in C
25 letters in S are called Nulls, and are unknown
these Nulls must be removed from C to obtain the actual cipher text C' which can then be attacked.
the list of Nulls in C is named N and |N| is close to |C|/2 = 3000
so: |N| + |C'| = |C|
My aim is to identify the 25 Nulls, satisfying these two conditions:
there may not be two identical adjacent characters in C'
there may not be two identical adjacent Nulls in N
Obviously by brute force there are 50!/(25! 25!) = 126410606437752 combinations of 25 Nulls in S, so this is not a realistic approach.
I have tried to recursively explore the tree of sets of Nulls and 'cut branches' as much and as soon as possible.
For example, when adding a letter of S to the subset of Nulls, if the sequence "x n1n2 x" appears in C where x is not yet a Null and n1n2 are Nulls, then x should be a Null too.
However this is not enough for a run-time lower than a few centuries...
Can you think of a more clever algorithm for identifying these 25 Nulls ?
Note: there might be more than one set of Nulls satisfying the two conditions
lets try something like this:
Create a list of sets - each set contains one char from S. the set is the null chars.
while you have more then two sets:
for each set
search the cipher text for X[<set-chars>]+X
if found, union the set with the set X in it.
if no sets where united, start recursing with two sets united.
You can speed up things if you keep a different cipher text for each set, removing from it the chars in the set. if you do so, the search is easier - you are searching for XX, witch is constant length. every time you union two sets you need to remove all the chars in the sets from the cipher text.
The time this well take depends on the string C you are given.
An explanation about the sets - each set is an option for C' or N. If you find that A and X are in the same group, then {A, X} is either a subset of N or of C'. If later you will find the same about Y and B, then {Y, B} is a subset. Later, finding a substring YAXAXY means that Y is in the same group as A and X, and so will B, because it's with Y. At the end you will end with two groups - one for C' and one for N, witch you can't distinguish between.
elyashiv's method is the good one.
It is very fast.
I have produced the two sets C' and N, which are equivalent.
The sub-sets of S, S1 and S2 which produce C' and N are adequately such that S = S1 U S2.
Thank you.
I have a string A of length N. I have to find number of strings (B) of length N that have M (M<=N) same characters as string A but satisfies the condition that A[i]!=B[i] for all i. Assume the characters that have to be same and the different ones are also given. What will be the recurrence relation to find number of such strings?
Example
123 is string A and M=1, and the character which is same is '1', and the new characters are '4' and '5'. The valid permutations are 451, 415, 514, 541. So it is a sort of derangement of 1 item of the given 3.
I am able to find the answer using inclusion-exclusion principle but wanted to know whether there is a recurrence relation to do the same?
Let us call g(M,N) the number of permutations satisfying your condition.
If M is 0, then the answer is N!
Otherwise, M>0 and consider placing the first character that is in string A.
There are M important positions corresponding to the places in the string where we are not allowed to place a certain character.
If we put our first character in one of these (M-1) important places (we cannot put it in position 1 due to the restriction), then we must take the place of one of the restricted characters, and so the number of restrictions reduces by 2 (1 for the character we place, and 1 for the character whose position we occupied).
If we put our first character in one of the N-M unimportant places, then we have only reduced the number of restrictions by 1.
Therefore the recurrence relation is:
g(M,N)=(M-1)g(M-2,N-1)+(N-M)g(M-1,N-1) if M>0
=N! if M=0
For your example, we wish to calculate g(1,3) (1 character matches, total of 3 characters placed)
g(1,3)=(3-1)g(0,2)
=(3-1).2!
=4
I'm looking for an algorithm or function that is able to map a string to a number in such way that the resulting values correspond the lexicographic ordering of strings. Example:
"book" -> 50000
"car" -> 60000
"card" -> 65000
"a longer string" -> 15000
"another long string" -> 15500
"awesome" -> 16000
As a function it should be something like: f(x) = y, so that for any x1 < x2 => f(x1) < f(x2), where x is an arbitrary string and y is a number.
If the input set of x is finite, then I could always do a sort and assign the proper values, but I'm looking for something generic for an unlimited input set for x.
If you require that f map to integers this is impossible.
Suppose that there is such a map f. Consider the strings a, aa, aaa, etc. Consider the values f(a), f(aa), f(aaa), etc. As we require that f(a) < f(aa) < f(aaa) < ... we see that f(a_n) tends to infinity as n tends to infinity; here I am using the obvious notation that a_n is the character a repeated n times. Now consider the string b. We require that f(a_n) < f(b) for all n. But f(b) is some finite integer and we just showed that f(a_n) goes to infinity. We have a contradiction. No such map is possible.
Maybe you could tell us what you need this for? This is fairly abstract and we might be able to suggest something more suitable. Further, don't necessarily worry about solving "it" generally. YAGNI and all that.
As a corollary to Jason's answer, if you can map your strings to rational numbers, such a mapping is very straightforward. If code(c) is the ASCII code of the character c and s[i] is theith character in the string s, just sum like follows:
result <- 0
scale <- 1
for i from 1 to length(s)
scale <- scale / 26
index <- (1 + code(s[i]) - code('a'))
result <- result + index / scale
end for
return result
This maps the empty string to 0, and every other string to a rational number between 0 and 1, maintaining lexicographical order. If you have arbitrary-precision decimal floating-point numbers, you can replace the division by powers of 26 with powers of 100 and still have exactly representable numbers; with arbitrary precision binary floating-point numbers, you can divide by powers of 32.
what you are asking for is a a temporary suspension of the pigeon hole principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle).
The strings are the pigeons, the numbers are the holes.
There are more pigeons than holes, so you can't put each pigeon in its own hole.
You would be much better off writing a comparator which you can supply to a sort function. The comparator takes two strings and returns -1, 0, or 1. Even if you could create such a map, you still have to sort on it. If you need both a "hash" and the order, then keep stuff in two data structures - one that preserves the order, and one that allows fast access.
Maybe a Radix Tree is what you're looking for?
A radix tree, Patricia trie/tree, or
crit bit tree is a specialized set
data structure based on the trie that
is used to store a set of strings. In
contrast with a regular trie, the
edges of a Patricia trie are labelled
with sequences of characters rather
than with single characters. These can
be strings of characters, bit strings
such as integers or IP addresses, or
generally arbitrary sequences of
objects in lexicographical order.
Sometimes the names radix tree and
crit bit tree are only applied to
trees storing integers and Patricia
trie is retained for more general
inputs, but the structure works the
same way in all cases.
LWN.net also has an article describing this data structures use in the Linux kernel.
I have post a question here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22798824/what-lexicographic-order-means
As workaround you can append empty symbols with code zero to right side of the string, and use expansion from case II.
Without such expansion with extra empty symbols I' m actually don't know how to make such mapping....
But if you have a finite set of Symbols (V), then |V*| is eqiualent to |N| -- fact from Disrete Math.