Efficient Way to Arrange Odd and Even Data Sequentially - performance

I have data like (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) .I want to arrange them in a way like (1,3,5,7,2,4,6,8) in n/2-2 swap without using any array and loop must be use 1 or less.
Note that i have to do the swap in existing array of number.If there is other way like without swap and without extra array use,
Please give me some advice.

maintain two pointers: p1,p2. p1 goes from start to end, p2 goes from end to start, and swap non matching elements.
pseudo code:
specialSort(array):
p1 <- array.start()
p2 <- array.end()
while (p1 != p2):
if (*p1 %2 == 0):
p1 <- p1 + 1;
continue;
if (*p2 %2 == 1):
p2 <- p2 -1;
continue;
//when here, both p1 and p2 need a swap
swap(p1,p2);
Note that complexity is O(n), at least one of p1 or p2 changes in every second iteration, so the loop cannot repeat more the 2*n=O(n) times. [we can find better bound, but it is not needed]. space complexity is trivially O(1), we allocate a constant amount of space: 2 pointers only.
Note2: if your language does not support pointers [i.e. java,ml,...], it can be replaced with indexes: i1 going from start to end, i2 going from end to start, with the same algorithm principle.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
char array[26] = "ABcdEfGiHjklMNOPqrsTUVWxyZ" ;
#define COUNTOF(a_) (sizeof(a_)/sizeof(a_)[0])
#define IS_ODD(e) ((e)&0x20)
#define IS_EVEN(e) (!IS_ODD(e))
void doswap (char *ptr, unsigned sizl, unsigned sizr);
int main(void)
{
unsigned bot,limit,cut,top,size;
size = COUNTOF(array);
printf("Before:%26.26s\n", array);
/* pass 1 count the number of EVEN chars */
for (limit=top=0; top < size; top++) {
if ( IS_EVEN( array[top] ) ) limit++;
}
/* skip initial segment of EVEN */
for (bot=0; bot < limit;bot++ ) {
if ( IS_ODD(array[bot])) break;
}
/* Find leading strech of misplaced ODD + trailing stretch of EVEN */
for (cut=bot;bot < limit; cut = top) {
/* count misplaced items */
for ( ;cut < size && IS_ODD(array[cut]); cut++) {;}
/* count shiftable items */
for (top=cut;top < size && IS_EVEN(array[top]); top++) {;}
/* Now, [bot...cut) and [cut...top) are two blocks
** that need to be swapped: swap them */
doswap(array+bot, cut-bot, top-cut);
bot += top-cut;
}
printf("Result:%26.26s\n", array);
return 0;
}
void doswap (char *ptr, unsigned sizl, unsigned sizr)
{
if (!sizl || !sizr) return;
if (sizl >= sizr) {
char tmp[sizr];
memcpy(tmp, ptr+sizl, sizr);
memmove(ptr+sizr, ptr, sizl);
memcpy(ptr, tmp, sizr);
}
else {
char tmp[sizr];
memcpy(tmp, ptr, sizl);
memmove(ptr, ptr+sizl, sizr);
memcpy(ptr+sizl, tmp, sizl);
}
}

Related

Merge sort in c++ with divide 3

How can I write a merge sort but divide to 3?
int merge_sort(int input[], int p, int r)
{
if ( p >= r )
return 0;
int mid = floor((p + r) / 2);
merge_sort(input, p, mid);
**merge_sort(input, mid + 1, r);**
merge(input, p, r);
}
This is probably supposed to be a 3 way merge. You may want to consider using a bottom up merge sort. For either top down or bottom up merge, most of the complexity is going to be in the merge function. As mentioned in the answer linked to by zwergmaster, it's a 3 way merge of runs. Each run needs a current and ending index or pointer. A sequence of if / else statements end up doing two compares to determine which of 3 runs has the smallest element, and then that smallest element is moved to the destination array (or vector or ...) and the next element from that run is retrieved. When the end of one of the 3 runs is reached, the code switches into a 2 way merge. When the end of the next run is reached, the code copies the rest of the remaining run. Then the next set of 3 runs are merged, repeating the process until the end of the array is reached, which could happen within any of the 3 runs, so the last merge near the end of the array may be a merge of 3 or 2 runs, or just a copy of 1 run.
It would be more efficient to have an initial function that allocates a temp array the same size as the array to be sorted, then have it call the merge sort function passing the temp array as a parameter, rather than constantly allocating and freeing small temp arrays during the merge sort process.
So using top down merge sort partial code to help explain this:
merge_sort(int *a, int n)
{
int *b = new int[n];
top_down_merge_sort(a, b, 0, n);
/* ... */
delete[] b;
}
top_down_merge_sort(int *a, int *b, int beg, int end)
{
if(end - beg < 3){
/* sort in place */
return;
}
int run0 = beg;
int run1 = beg + (end-beg)/3;
int run2 = beg + 2*(end-beg)/3;
top_down_merge_sort(a, b, run0, run1);
top_down_merge_sort(a, b, run1, run2);
top_down_merge_sort(a, b, run2, end);
merge_runs(a, b, run0, run1, run2, end);
}

Algorithm Challenge: Arbitrary in-place base conversion for lossless string compression

It might help to start out with a real world example. Say I'm writing a web app that's backed by MongoDB, so my records have a long hex primary key, making my url to view a record look like /widget/55c460d8e2d6e59da89d08d0. That seems excessively long. Urls can use many more characters than that. While there are just under 8 x 10^28 (16^24) possible values in a 24 digit hex number, just limiting yourself to the characters matched by a [a-zA-Z0-9] regex class (a YouTube video id uses more), 62 characters, you can get past 8 x 10^28 in only 17 characters.
I want an algorithm that will convert any string that is limited to a specific alphabet of characters to any other string with another alphabet of characters, where the value of each character c could be thought of as alphabet.indexOf(c).
Something of the form:
convert(value, sourceAlphabet, destinationAlphabet)
Assumptions
all parameters are strings
every character in value exists in sourceAlphabet
every character in sourceAlphabet and destinationAlphabet is unique
Simplest example
var hex = "0123456789abcdef";
var base10 = "0123456789";
var result = convert("12245589", base10, hex); // result is "bada55";
But I also want it to work to convert War & Peace from the Russian alphabet plus some punctuation to the entire unicode charset and back again losslessly.
Is this possible?
The only way I was ever taught to do base conversions in Comp Sci 101 was to first convert to a base ten integer by summing digit * base^position and then doing the reverse to convert to the target base. Such a method is insufficient for the conversion of very long strings, because the integers get too big.
It certainly feels intuitively that a base conversion could be done in place, as you step through the string (probably backwards to maintain standard significant digit order), keeping track of a remainder somehow, but I'm not smart enough to work out how.
That's where you come in, StackOverflow. Are you smart enough?
Perhaps this is a solved problem, done on paper by some 18th century mathematician, implemented in LISP on punch cards in 1970 and the first homework assignment in Cryptography 101, but my searches have borne no fruit.
I'd prefer a solution in javascript with a functional style, but any language or style will do, as long as you're not cheating with some big integer library. Bonus points for efficiency, of course.
Please refrain from criticizing the original example. The general nerd cred of solving the problem is more important than any application of the solution.
Here is a solution in C that is very fast, using bit shift operations. It assumes that you know what the length of the decoded string should be. The strings are vectors of integers in the range 0..maximum for each alphabet. It is up to the user to convert to and from strings with restricted ranges of characters. As for the "in-place" in the question title, the source and destination vectors can overlap, but only if the source alphabet is not larger than the destination alphabet.
/*
recode version 1.0, 22 August 2015
Copyright (C) 2015 Mark Adler
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.
Mark Adler
madler#alumni.caltech.edu
*/
/* Recode a vector from one alphabet to another using intermediate
variable-length bit codes. */
/* The approach is to use a Huffman code over equiprobable alphabets in two
directions. First to encode the source alphabet to a string of bits, and
second to encode the string of bits to the destination alphabet. This will
be reasonably close to the efficiency of base-encoding with arbitrary
precision arithmetic. */
#include <stddef.h> // size_t
#include <limits.h> // UINT_MAX, ULLONG_MAX
#if UINT_MAX == ULLONG_MAX
# error recode() assumes that long long has more bits than int
#endif
/* Take a list of integers source[0..slen-1], all in the range 0..smax, and
code them into dest[0..*dlen-1], where each value is in the range 0..dmax.
*dlen returns the length of the result, which will not exceed the value of
*dlen when called. If the original *dlen is not large enough to hold the
full result, then recode() will return non-zero to indicate failure.
Otherwise recode() will return 0. recode() will also return non-zero if
either of the smax or dmax parameters are less than one. The non-zero
return codes are 1 if *dlen is not long enough, 2 for invalid parameters,
and 3 if any of the elements of source are greater than smax.
Using this same operation on the result with smax and dmax reversed reverses
the operation, restoring the original vector. However there may be more
symbols returned than the original, so the number of symbols expected needs
to be known for decoding. (An end symbol could be appended to the source
alphabet to include the length in the coding, but then encoding and decoding
would no longer be symmetric, and the coding efficiency would be reduced.
This is left as an exercise for the reader if that is desired.) */
int recode(unsigned *dest, size_t *dlen, unsigned dmax,
const unsigned *source, size_t slen, unsigned smax)
{
// compute sbits and scut, with which we will recode the source with
// sbits-1 bits for symbols < scut, otherwise with sbits bits (adding scut)
if (smax < 1)
return 2;
unsigned sbits = 0;
unsigned scut = 1; // 2**sbits
while (scut && scut <= smax) {
scut <<= 1;
sbits++;
}
scut -= smax + 1;
// same thing for dbits and dcut
if (dmax < 1)
return 2;
unsigned dbits = 0;
unsigned dcut = 1; // 2**dbits
while (dcut && dcut <= dmax) {
dcut <<= 1;
dbits++;
}
dcut -= dmax + 1;
// recode a base smax+1 vector to a base dmax+1 vector using an
// intermediate bit vector (a sliding window of that bit vector is kept in
// a bit buffer)
unsigned long long buf = 0; // bit buffer
unsigned have = 0; // number of bits in bit buffer
size_t i = 0, n = 0; // source and dest indices
unsigned sym; // symbol being encoded
for (;;) {
// encode enough of source into bits to encode that to dest
while (have < dbits && i < slen) {
sym = source[i++];
if (sym > smax) {
*dlen = n;
return 3;
}
if (sym < scut) {
buf = (buf << (sbits - 1)) + sym;
have += sbits - 1;
}
else {
buf = (buf << sbits) + sym + scut;
have += sbits;
}
}
// if not enough bits to assure one symbol, then break out to a special
// case for coding the final symbol
if (have < dbits)
break;
// encode one symbol to dest
if (n == *dlen)
return 1;
sym = buf >> (have - dbits + 1);
if (sym < dcut) {
dest[n++] = sym;
have -= dbits - 1;
}
else {
sym = buf >> (have - dbits);
dest[n++] = sym - dcut;
have -= dbits;
}
buf &= ((unsigned long long)1 << have) - 1;
}
// if any bits are left in the bit buffer, encode one last symbol to dest
if (have) {
if (n == *dlen)
return 1;
sym = buf;
sym <<= dbits - 1 - have;
if (sym >= dcut)
sym = (sym << 1) - dcut;
dest[n++] = sym;
}
// return recoded vector
*dlen = n;
return 0;
}
/* Test recode(). */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <assert.h>
// Return a random vector of len unsigned values in the range 0..max.
static void ranvec(unsigned *vec, size_t len, unsigned max) {
unsigned bits = 0;
unsigned long long mask = 1;
while (mask <= max) {
mask <<= 1;
bits++;
}
mask--;
unsigned long long ran = 0;
unsigned have = 0;
size_t n = 0;
while (n < len) {
while (have < bits) {
ran = (ran << 31) + random();
have += 31;
}
if ((ran & mask) <= max)
vec[n++] = ran & mask;
ran >>= bits;
have -= bits;
}
}
// Get a valid number from str and assign it to var
#define NUM(var, str) \
do { \
char *end; \
unsigned long val = strtoul(str, &end, 0); \
var = val; \
if (*end || var != val) { \
fprintf(stderr, \
"invalid or out of range numeric argument: %s\n", str); \
return 1; \
} \
} while (0)
/* "bet n m len count" generates count test vectors of length len, where each
entry is in the range 0..n. Each vector is recoded to another vector using
only symbols in the range 0..m. That vector is recoded back to a vector
using only symbols in 0..n, and that result is compared with the original
random vector. Report on the average ratio of input and output symbols, as
compared to the optimal ratio for arbitrary precision base encoding. */
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// get sizes of alphabets and length of test vector, compute maximum sizes
// of recoded vectors
unsigned smax, dmax, runs;
size_t slen, dsize, bsize;
if (argc != 5) { fputs("need four arguments\n", stderr); return 1; }
NUM(smax, argv[1]);
NUM(dmax, argv[2]);
NUM(slen, argv[3]);
NUM(runs, argv[4]);
dsize = ceil(slen * ceil(log2(smax + 1.)) / floor(log2(dmax + 1.)));
bsize = ceil(dsize * ceil(log2(dmax + 1.)) / floor(log2(smax + 1.)));
// generate random test vectors, encode, decode, and compare
srandomdev();
unsigned source[slen], dest[dsize], back[bsize];
unsigned mis = 0, i;
unsigned long long dtot = 0;
int ret;
for (i = 0; i < runs; i++) {
ranvec(source, slen, smax);
size_t dlen = dsize;
ret = recode(dest, &dlen, dmax, source, slen, smax);
if (ret) {
fprintf(stderr, "encode error %d\n", ret);
break;
}
dtot += dlen;
size_t blen = bsize;
ret = recode(back, &blen, smax, dest, dlen, dmax);
if (ret) {
fprintf(stderr, "decode error %d\n", ret);
break;
}
if (blen < slen || memcmp(source, back, slen)) // blen > slen is ok
mis++;
}
if (mis)
fprintf(stderr, "%u/%u mismatches!\n", mis, i);
if (ret == 0)
printf("mean dest/source symbols = %.4f (optimal = %.4f)\n",
dtot / (i * (double)slen), log(smax + 1.) / log(dmax + 1.));
return 0;
}
As has been pointed out in other StackOverflow answers, try not to think of summing digit * base^position as converting it to base ten; rather, think of it as directing the computer to generate a representation of the quantity represented by the number in its own terms (for most computers probably closer to our concept of base 2). Once the computer has its own representation of the quantity, we can direct it to output the number in any way we like.
By rejecting "big integer" implementations and asking for letter-by-letter conversion you are at the same time arguing that the numerical/alphabetical representation of quantity is not actually what it is, namely that each position represents a quantity of digit * base^position. If the nine-millionth character of War and Peace does represent what you are asking to convert it from, then the computer at some point will need to generate a representation for Д * 33^9000000.
I don't think any solution can work generally because if ne != m for some integer e and some MAX_INT because there's no way to calculate the value of the target base in a certain place p if np > MAX_INT.
You can get away with this for the case where ne == m for some e because the problem is recursively doable (the first e digits of n can be summed and converted into the first digit of M, and then chopped off and repeated.
If you don't have this useful property, then eventually you're going to have to try to take some part of the original base and try to perform modulus in np and np is going to be greater than MAX_INT, which means it's impossible.

Efficiently count occurrences of each element from given ranges

So i have some ranges like these:
2 4
1 9
4 5
4 7
For this the result should be
1 -> 1
2 -> 2
3 -> 2
4 -> 4
5 -> 3
6 -> 2
7 -> 2
8 -> 1
9 -> 1
The naive approach will be to loop through all the ranges but that would be very inefficient and the worst case would take O(n * n)
What would be the efficient approach probably in O(n) or O(log(n))
Here's the solution, in O(n):
The rationale is to add a range [a, b] as a +1 in a, and a -1 after b. Then, after adding all the ranges, then compute the accumulated sums for that array and display it.
If you need to perform queries while adding the values, a better choice would be to use a Binary Indexed Tree, but your question doesn't seem to require this, so I left it out.
#include <iostream>
#define MAX 1000
using namespace std;
int T[MAX];
int main() {
int a, b;
int min_index = 0x1f1f1f1f, max_index = 0;
while(cin >> a >> b) {
T[a] += 1;
T[b+1] -= 1;
min_index = min(min_index, a);
max_index = max(max_index, b);
}
for(int i=min_index; i<=max_index; i++) {
T[i] += T[i-1];
cout << i << " -> " << T[i] << endl;
}
}
UPDATE: Based on the "provocations" (in a good sense) by גלעד ברקן, you can also do this in O(n log n):
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#define ull unsigned long long
#define miit map<ull, int>::iterator
using namespace std;
map<ull, int> T;
int main() {
ull a, b;
while(cin >> a >> b) {
T[a] += 1;
T[b+1] -= 1;
}
ull last;
int count = 0;
for(miit it = T.begin(); it != T.end(); it++) {
if (count > 0)
for(ull i=last; i<it->first; i++)
cout << i << " " << count << endl;
count += it->second;
last = it->first;
}
}
The advantage of this solution is being able to support ranges with much larger values (as long as the output isn't so large).
The solution would be pretty simple:
generate two lists with the indices of all starting and ending indices of the ranges and sort them.
Generate a counter for the number of ranges that cover the current index. Start at the first item that is at any range and iterate over all numbers to the last element that is in any range. Now if an index is either part of the list of starting-indices, we add 1 to the counter, if it's an element of the ending-indices, we substract 1 from the counter.
Implementation:
vector<int> count(int** ranges , int rangecount , int rangemin , int rangemax)
{
vector<int> res;
set<int> open, close;
for(int** r = ranges ; r < ranges + sizeof(int*) * rangecount ; r++)
{
open.add((*r)[0]);
close.add((*r)[1]);
}
int rc = 0;
for(int i = rangemin ; i < rangemax ; i++)
{
if(open.count(i))
++rc;
res.add(rc);
if(close.count(i))
--rc;
}
return res;
}
Paul's answer still counts from "the first item that is at any range and iterate[s] over all numbers to the last element that is in any range." But what is we could aggregate overlapping counts? For example, if we have three (or say a very large number of) overlapping ranges [(2,6),[1,6],[2,8] the section (2,6) could be dependent only on the number of ranges, if we were to label the overlaps with their counts [(1),3(2,6),(7,8)]).
Using binary search (once for the start and a second time for the end of each interval), we could split the intervals and aggregate the counts in O(n * log m * l) time, where n is our number of given ranges and m is the number of resulting groups in the total range and l varies as the number of disjoint updates required for a particular overlap (the number of groups already within that range). Notice that at any time, we simply have a sorted list grouped as intervals with labeled count.
2 4
1 9
4 5
4 7
=>
(2,4)
(1),2(2,4),(5,9)
(1),2(2,3),3(4),2(5),(6,9)
(1),2(2,3),4(4),3(5),2(6,7),(8,9)
So you want the output to be an array, where the value of each element is the number of input ranges that include it?
Yeah, the obvious solution would be to increment every element in the range by 1, for each range.
I think you can get more efficient if you sort the input ranges by start (primary), end (secondary). So for 32bit start and end, start:end can be a 64bit sort key. Actually, just sorting by start is fine, we need to sort the ends differently anyway.
Then you can see how many ranges you enter for an element, and (with a pqueue of range-ends) see how many you already left.
# pseudo-code with possible bugs.
# TODO: peek or put-back the element from ranges / ends
# that made the condition false.
pqueue ends; // priority queue
int depth = 0; // how many ranges contain this element
for i in output.len {
while (r = ranges.next && r.start <= i) {
ends.push(r.end);
depth++;
}
while (ends.pop < i) {
depth--;
}
output[i] = depth;
}
assert ends.empty();
Actually, we can just sort the starts and ends separately into two separate priority queues. There's no need to build the pqueue on the fly. (Sorting an array of integers is more efficient than sorting an array of structs by one struct member, because you don't have to copy around as much data.)

Converting A Recursive Function into a Non-Recursive Function

I'm trying to convert a recursive function into a non-recursive solution in pseudocode. The reason why I'm running into problems is that the method has two recursive calls in it.
Any help would be great. Thanks.
void mystery(int a, int b) {
if (b - a > 1) {
int mid = roundDown(a + b) / 2;
print mid;
mystery(a, mid);
mystery(mid + 1, b);
}
}
This one seems more interesting, it will result in displaying all numbers from a to (b-1) in an order specific to the recursive function. Note that all of the "left" midpoints get printed before any "right" midpoints.
void mystery (int a, int b) {
if (b > a) {
int mid = roundDown(a + b) / 2;
print mid;
mystery(a, mid);
mystery(mid + 1, b);
}
}
For example, if a = 0, and b = 16, then the output is:
8 4 2 1 0 3 6 5 7 12 10 9 11 14 13 15
The texbook method to turn a recursive procedure into an iterative one is simply to replace the recursive call with
a stack and run a "do loop" until the stack is empty.
Try the following:
push(0, 16); /* Prime the stack */
call mystery;
...
void mystery {
do until stackempty() { /* iterate until stack is empty */
pop(a, b) /* pop and process... */
do while (b - a >= 1) { /* run the "current" values down... */
int mid = roundDown(a+b)/2;
print mid;
push(mid+1, b); /* push in place of recursive call */
b = mid;
}
}
The original function had two recusive calls, so why only a single stack? Ignore the requirements for
the second recursive call and you can easily see
the first recursive call (mystery(a, mid);) could implemented as a simple loop where b assumes the value of mid
on each iteration - nothing else needs to be "remembered". So turn it into a loop and simply push
the parameters needed for the recusion onto a stack,
add an outer loop to run the stack down. Done.
With a bit of creative thinking, any recursive function can be turned into an iterative one using stacks.
This is what is happening. You have a long rod, you are dividing it into two. Then you take these two parts and divide it into two. You do this with each sub-part until the length of that part becomes 1.
How would you do that?
Assume you have to break the rod at mid point. We will put the marks to cut in bins for further cuts. Note: each part spawns two new parts so we need 2n boxes to store sub-parts.
len = pow (2, b-a+1) // +1 might not be needed
ar = int[len] // large array will memoize my marks to cut
ar[0] = a // first mark
ar[1] = b // last mark
start_ptr = 0 // will start from this point
end_ptr = 1 // will end to this point
new_end = end_ptr // our end point will move for cuts
while true: //loop endlessly, I do not know, may there is a limit
while start_ptr < end_ptr: // look into bins
i = ar[start_ptr] //
j = ar[start_ptr+1] // pair-wise ends
if j - i > 1 // if lengthier than unit length, then add new marks
mid = floor ( (i+j) / 2 ) // this is my mid
print mid
ar[++new_end] = i // first mark --|
ar[++new_end] = mid - 1 // mid - 1 mark --+-- these two create one pair
ar[++new_end] = mid + 1 // 2nd half 1st mark --|
ar[++new_end] = j // end mark --+-- these two create 2nd pair
start_ptr = start_ptr + 2 // jump to next two ends
if end_ptr == new_end // if we passed to all the pairs and no new pair
break // was created, we are done.
else
end_ptr = new_end //else, start from sub prolem
PS: I haven't tried this code. This is just a pseudo code. It seems to me that it should do the job. Let me know if you try it out. It will validate my algorithm. It is basically a b-tree in an array.
This example recursively splits a range of numbers until the range is reduced to a single value. The output shows the structure of the numbers. The single values are output in order, but grouped based on the left side first split function.
void split(int a, int b)
{
int m;
if ((b - a) < 2) { /* if size == 1, return */
printf(" | %2d", a);
return;
}
m = (a + b) / 2; /* else split array */
printf("\n%2d %2d %2d", a, m, b);
split(a, m);
split(m, b);
}

Reorder a string by half the character

This is an interview question.
Given a string such as: 123456abcdef consisting of n/2 integers followed by n/2 characters. Reorder the string to contain as 1a2b3c4d5e6f . The algortithm should be in-place.
The solution I gave was trivial - O(n^2). Just shift the characters by n/2 places to the left.
I tried using recursion as -
a. Swap later half of the first half with the previous half of the 2nd part - eg
123 456 abc def
123 abc 456 def
b. Recurse on the two halves.
The pbm I am stuck is that the swapping varies with the number of elements - for eg.
What to do next?
123 abc
12ab 3c
And what to do for : 12345 abcde
123abc 45ab
This is a pretty old question and may be a duplicate. Please let me know.. :)
Another example:
Input: 38726zfgsa
Output: 3z8f7g2s6a
Here's how I would approach the problem:
1) Divide the string into two partitions, number part and letter part
2) Divide each of those partitions into two more (equal sized)
3) Swap the second the third partition (inner number and inner letter)
4) Recurse on the original two partitions (with their newly swapped bits)
5) Stop when the partition has a size of 2
For example:
123456abcdef -> 123456 abcdef -> 123 456 abc def -> 123 abc 456 def
123abc -> 123 abc -> 12 3 ab c -> 12 ab 3 c
12 ab -> 1 2 a b -> 1 a 2 b
... etc
And the same for the other half of the recursion..
All can be done in place with the only gotcha being swapping partitions that aren't the same size (but it'll be off by one, so not difficult to handle).
It is easy to permute an array in place by chasing elements round cycles if you have a bit-map to mark which elements have been moved. We don't have a separate bit-map, but IF your characters are letters (or at least have the high order bit clear) then we can use the top bit of each character to mark this. This produces the following program, which is not recursive and so does not use stack space.
class XX
{
/** new position given old position */
static int newFromOld(int x, int n)
{
if (x < n / 2)
{
return x * 2;
}
return (x - n / 2) * 2 + 1;
}
private static int HIGH_ORDER_BIT = 1 << 15; // 16-bit chars
public static void main(String[] s)
{
// input data - create an array so we can modify
// characters in place
char[] x = s[0].toCharArray();
if ((x.length & 1) != 0)
{
System.err.println("Only works with even length strings");
return;
}
// Character we have read but not yet written, if any
char holding = 0;
// where character in hand was read from
int holdingPos = 0;
// whether picked up a character in our hand
boolean isHolding = false;
int rpos = 0;
while (rpos < x.length)
{ // Here => moved out everything up to rpos
// and put in place with top bit set to mark new occupant
if (!isHolding)
{ // advance read pointer to read new character
char here = x[rpos];
holdingPos = rpos++;
if ((here & HIGH_ORDER_BIT) != 0)
{
// already dealt with
continue;
}
int targetPos = newFromOld(holdingPos, x.length);
// pick up char at target position
holding = x[targetPos];
// place new character, and mark as new
x[targetPos] = (char)(here | HIGH_ORDER_BIT);
// Now holding a character that needs to be put in its
// correct place
isHolding = true;
holdingPos = targetPos;
}
int targetPos = newFromOld(holdingPos, x.length);
char here = x[targetPos];
if ((here & HIGH_ORDER_BIT) != 0)
{ // back to where we picked up a character to hold
isHolding = false;
continue;
}
x[targetPos] = (char)(holding | HIGH_ORDER_BIT);
holding = here;
holdingPos = targetPos;
}
for (int i = 0; i < x.length; i++)
{
x[i] ^= HIGH_ORDER_BIT;
}
System.out.println("Result is " + new String(x));
}
}
These days, if I asked someone that question, what I'm looking for them to write on the whiteboard first is:
assertEquals("1a2b3c4d5e6f",funnySort("123456abcdef"));
...
and then maybe ask for more examples.
(And then, depending, if the task is to interleave numbers & letters, I think you can do it with two walking-pointers, indexLetter and indexDigit, and advance them across swapping as needed til you reach the end.)
In your recursive solution why don't you just make a test if n/2 % 2 == 0 (n%4 ==0 ) and treat the 2 situations differently
As templatetypedef commented your recursion cannot be in-place.
But here is a solution (not in place) using the way you wanted to make your recursion :
def f(s):
n=len(s)
if n==2: #initialisation
return s
elif n%4 == 0 : #if n%4 == 0 it's easy
return f(s[:n/4]+s[n/2:3*n/4])+f(s[n/4:n/2]+s[3*n/4:])
else: #otherwise, n-2 %4 == 0
return s[0]+s[n/2]+f(s[1:n/2]+s[n/2+1:])
Here we go. Recursive, cuts it in half each time, and in-place. Uses the approach outlined by #Chris Mennie. Getting the splitting right was tricky. A lot longer than Python, innit?
/* In-place, divide-and-conquer, recursive riffle-shuffle of strings;
* even length only. No wide characters or Unicode; old school. */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
void testrif(const char *s);
void riffle(char *s);
void rif_recur(char *s, size_t len);
void swap(char *s, size_t midpt, size_t len);
void flip(char *s, size_t len);
void if_odd_quit(const char *s);
int main(void)
{
testrif("");
testrif("a1");
testrif("ab12");
testrif("abc123");
testrif("abcd1234");
testrif("abcde12345");
testrif("abcdef123456");
return 0;
}
void testrif(const char *s)
{
char mutable[20];
strcpy(mutable, s);
printf("'%s'\n", mutable);
riffle(mutable);
printf("'%s'\n\n", mutable);
}
void riffle(char *s)
{
if_odd_quit(s);
rif_recur(s, strlen(s));
}
void rif_recur(char *s, size_t len)
{
/* Turn, e.g., "abcde12345" into "abc123de45", then recurse. */
size_t pivot = len / 2;
size_t half = (pivot + 1) / 2;
size_t twice = half * 2;
if (len < 4)
return;
swap(s + half, pivot - half, pivot);
rif_recur(s, twice);
rif_recur(s + twice, len - twice);
}
void swap(char *s, size_t midpt, size_t len)
{
/* Swap s[0..midpt] with s[midpt..len], in place. Algorithm from
* Programming Pearls, Chapter 2. */
flip(s, midpt);
flip(s + midpt, len - midpt);
flip(s, len);
}
void flip(char *s, size_t len)
{
/* Reverse order of characters in s, in place. */
char *p, *q, tmp;
if (len < 2)
return;
for (p = s, q = s + len - 1; p < q; p++, q--) {
tmp = *p;
*p = *q;
*q = tmp;
}
}
void if_odd_quit(const char *s)
{
if (strlen(s) % 2) {
fputs("String length is odd; aborting.\n", stderr);
exit(1);
}
}
By comparing 123456abcdef and 1a2b3c4d5e6f we can note that only the first and the last characters are in their correct position. We can also note that for each remaining n-2 characters we can compute their correct position directly from their original position. They will get there, and the element that was there surely was not in the correct position, so it will have to replace another one. By doing n-2 such steps all the elements will get to the correct positions:
void funny_sort(char* arr, int n){
int pos = 1; // first unordered element
char aux = arr[pos];
for (int iter = 0; iter < n-2; iter++) { // n-2 unordered elements
pos = (pos < n/2) ? pos*2 : (pos-n/2)*2+1;// correct pos for aux
swap(&aux, arr + pos);
}
}
Score each digit as its numerical value. Score each letter as a = 1.5, b = 2.5 c = 3.5 etc. Run an insertion sort of the string based on the score of each character.
[ETA] Simple scoring won't work so use two pointers and reverse the piece of the string between the two pointers. One pointer starts at the front of the string and advances one step each cycle. The other pointer starts in the middle of the string and advances every second cycle.
123456abcdef
^ ^
1a65432bcdef
^ ^
1a23456bcdef
^ ^
1a2b6543cdef
^ ^

Resources