The following problem is taken from Problems on Algorithms (Problem 653):
You are given a n x 2 matrix of numbers. Find an O(n log n) algorithm that permutes the rows in the array such that that neither column of the array contains an increasing subsequence (that may not consist of contiguous array elements) longer than ⌈√n.⌉
I'm not sure how to solve this. I think that it might use some sort of divide-and-conquer recurrence, but I can't seem to find one.
Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this?
Heres's my solution.
1) Sort rows according to the first element from greatest to lowest.
1 6 5 1
3 3 -\ 3 3
2 4 -/ 2 4
5 1 1 6
2) Divide it into groups of ⌈√n⌉, and what is left(no more then ⌈√n⌉ groups)
5 1 5 1
3 3 -\ 3 3
2 4 -/
1 6 2 4
1 6
3) Sort rows in each group according to the second element from greatest to lowest
5 1 3 3
3 3 5 1
->
2 4 1 6
1 6 2 4
Proof of correctness:
Increasing subsequences in column 1 can happen only in single group(size is <= ⌈√n⌉),
No 2 elements of increasing subsequences in column 2 are in the same group(no more than ⌈√n⌉ groups)
Related
Let's say we have an array of size N with values from 1 to N inside it. We want to check if this array has any duplicates. My friend suggested two ways that I showed him were wrong:
Take the sum of the array and check it against the sum 1+2+3+...+N. I gave the example 1,1,4,4 which proves that this way is wrong since 1+1+4+4 = 1+2+3+4 despite there being duplicates in the array.
Next he suggested the same thing but with multiplication. i.e. check if the product of the elements in the array is equal to N!, but again this fails with an array like 2,2,3,2, where 2x2x3x2 = 1x2x3x4.
Finally, he suggested doing both checks, and if one of them fails, then there is a duplicate in the array. I can't help but feel that this is still incorrect, but I can't prove it to him by giving him an example of an array with duplicates that passes both checks. I understand that the burden of proof lies with him, not me, but I can't help but want to find an example where this doesn't work.
P.S. I understand there are many more efficient ways to solve such a problem, but we are trying to discuss this particular approach.
Is there a way to prove that doing both checks doesn't necessarily mean there are no duplicates?
Here's a counterexample: 1,3,3,3,4,6,7,8,10,10
Found by looking for a pair of composite numbers with factorizations that change the sum & count by the same amount.
I.e., 9 -> 3, 3 reduces the sum by 3 and increases the count by 1, and 10 -> 2, 5 does the same. So by converting 2,5 to 10 and 9 to 3,3, I leave both the sum and count unchanged. Also of course the product, since I'm replacing numbers with their factors & vice versa.
Here's a much longer one.
24 -> 2*3*4 increases the count by 2 and decreases the sum by 15
2*11 -> 22 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 9
2*8 -> 16 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 6.
We have a second 2 available because of the factorization of 24.
This gives us:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
Has the same sum, product, and count of elements as
1,3,3,4,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23
In general you can find these by finding all factorizations of composite numbers, seeing how they change the sum & count (as above), and choosing changes in both directions (composite <-> factors) that cancel out.
I've just wrote a simple not very effective brute-force function. And it shows that there is for example
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9
sequence that has the same sum and product as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For n = 10 there are more such sequences:
1 2 3 4 6 6 6 7 10 10
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9 10
1 3 3 3 4 6 7 8 10 10
1 3 3 4 4 4 7 9 10 10
2 2 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 10
My write-only c++ code is here: https://ideone.com/2oRCbh
I am given a number from 1 to N , and there are M relationship given in the form a and b where we can connect number a and b.
We have to form the valid array , A array is said to be valid if for any two consecutive indexes A[i] and A[i+1] is one of the M relationship
We have to construct a valid Array of Size N, it's always possible to construct that.
Solution: Make A Bipartite Graph of the following , but there is a loophole on this,
let N=6
M=6
1 2
2 3
1 3
4 5
5 6
3 4
So Bipartite Matching gives this:
Match[1]=2
Match[2]=3
Match[3]=1 // Here it form a Loop
Match[4]=5
Match[5]=6
So how to i print a valid Array of size N , since N can be very large so many loops can be formed ? Is there any other solution ?
Another Example:
let N=6
M=6
1 3
3 5
2 5
5 1
4 2
6 4
It's will form a loop 1->3->5->1
1 3 5 2 4 6
I use Selection Sort to sort 100 reverse-sorted integers {100,99,98...1}. How many 'useless' swaps will our selection sort perform? A useless swap is where the array contents are unchanged because a value is swapped with itself.
To me the answer looks like zero? Because after each iteration of selection sort, I have the following: {1 99 98 .... 4 3 2 100}
{1 2 98 ..... 4 3 99 100} and so on
However, the answer is 50. How is that possible?
Consider the following list
5 4 3 2 1
1 4 3 2 5 //swap 1 with 5
1 2 3 4 5 //swap 2 with 4
1 2 3 4 5 //useless swap (3 with 3)
1 2 3 4 5 //useless swap (4 with 4)
now apply this on your list.
The last swap will be 50 and 51. Once this swap is done, all other elements are swapped. So swaps will be 1-100,2-99,3-98.....,48-53,49-52,50-51...
This completes the sorting. After 50 swaps, rest all elements are automatically sorted. So rest of the swaps are useless.
I have a sqaure matrix and a smaller square which moves inside the matrix at all possible positions (does not go out of the matrix). I need to find the smallest number in all such possible overlappings.
The problem is that the sizes of both can go upto thousands. Any fast way to do that?
I know one way - if there's an array instead of a matrix and a window instead of a square, we can do that in linear time using a deque.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Examples
Matrix:
1 3 6 2 5
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
7 4 8 2 1
8 0 9 0 5
For a square of size 3, total 9 overlappings are possible. For each overlapping the minimum numbers in matrix form are:
1 1 1
2 1 1
0 0 0
It is possible in O(k * n^2) with your deque idea:
If your smaller square is k x k, iterate the first row of elements from 1 to k in your matrix and treat it as an array by precomputing the minimum of the elements from 1 to k, from 2 to k + 1 etc in each column of the matrix (this precomputation will take O(k * n^2)). This is what your first row will be:
*********
1 3 6 2 5
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
*********
7 4 8 2 1
8 0 9 0 5
The precomputation I mentioned will give you the minimum in each of its columns, so you will have reduced the problem to your 1d array problem.
Then continue with the row of elements from 2 to k + 1:
1 3 6 2 5
*********
8 2 3 4 5
3 8 6 1 5
7 4 8 2 1
*********
8 0 9 0 5
There will be O(n) rows and you will be able to solve each one in O(n) because our precomputation allows us to reduce them to basic arrays.
This was one of my interview questions.
We have a matrix containing integers (no range provided). The matrix is randomly populated with integers. We need to devise an algorithm which finds those rows which match exactly with a column(s). We need to return the row number and the column number for the match. The order of of the matching elements is the same. For example, If, i'th row matches with j'th column, and i'th row contains the elements - [1,4,5,6,3]. Then jth column would also contain the elements - [1,4,5,6,3]. Size is n x n.
My solution:
RCEQUAL(A,i1..12,j1..j2)// A is n*n matrix
if(i2-i1==2 && j2-j1==2 && b[n*i1+1..n*i2] has [j1..j2])
use brute force to check if the rows and columns are same.
if (any rows and columns are same)
store the row and column numbers in b[1..n^2].//b[1],b[n+2],b[2n+3].. store row no,
// b[2..n+1] stores columns that
//match with row 1, b[n+3..2n+2]
//those that match with row 2,etc..
else
RCEQUAL(A,1..n/2,1..n/2);
RCEQUAL(A,n/2..n,1..n/2);
RCEQUAL(A,1..n/2,n/2..n);
RCEQUAL(A,n/2..n,n/2..n);
Takes O(n^2). Is this correct? If correct, is there a faster algorithm?
you could build a trie from the data in the rows. then you can compare the columns with the trie.
this would allow to exit as soon as the beginning of a column do not match any row. also this would let you check a column against all rows in one pass.
of course the trie is most interesting when n is big (setting up a trie for a small n is not worth it) and when there are many rows and columns which are quite the same. but even in the worst case where all integers in the matrix are different, the structure allows for a clear algorithm...
You could speed up the average case by calculating the sum of each row/column and narrowing your brute-force comparison (which you have to do eventually) only on rows that match the sums of columns.
This doesn't increase the worst case (all having the same sum) but if your input is truly random that "won't happen" :-)
This might only work on non-singular matrices (not sure), but...
Let A be a square (and possibly non-singular) NxN matrix. Let A' be the transpose of A. If we create matrix B such that it is a horizontal concatenation of A and A' (in other words [A A']) and put it into RREF form, we will get a diagonal on all ones in the left half and some square matrix in the right half.
Example:
A = 1 2
3 4
A'= 1 3
2 4
B = 1 2 1 3
3 4 2 4
rref(B) = 1 0 0 -2
0 1 0.5 2.5
On the other hand, if a column of A were equal to a row of A then column of A would be equal to a column of A'. Then we would get another single 1 in of of the columns of the right half of rref(B).
Example
A=
1 2 3 4 5
2 6 -3 4 6
3 8 -7 6 9
4 1 7 -5 3
5 2 4 -1 -1
A'=
1 2 3 4 5
2 6 8 1 2
3 -3 -7 7 4
4 4 6 -5 -1
5 6 9 3 -1
B =
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 6 -3 4 6 2 6 8 1 2
3 8 -7 6 9 3 -3 -7 7 4
4 1 7 -5 3 4 4 6 -5 -1
5 2 4 -1 -1 5 6 9 3 -1
rref(B)=
1 0 0 0 0 1.000 -3.689 -5.921 3.080 0.495
0 1 0 0 0 0 6.054 9.394 -3.097 -1.024
0 0 1 0 0 0 2.378 3.842 -0.961 0.009
0 0 0 1 0 0 -0.565 -0.842 1.823 0.802
0 0 0 0 1 0 -2.258 -3.605 0.540 0.662
1.000 in the top row of the right half means that the first column of A matches on of its rows. The fact that the 1.000 is in the left-most column of the right half means that it is the first row.
Without looking at your algorithm or any of the approaches in the previous answers, but since the matrix has n^2 elements to begin with, I do not think there is a method which does better than that :)
IFF the matrix is truely random...
You could create a list of pointers to the columns sorted by the first element. Then create a similar list of the rows sorted by their first element. This takes O(n*logn).
Next create an index into each sorted list initialized to 0. If the first elements match, you must compare the whole row. If they do not match, increment the index of the one with the lowest starting element (either move to the next row or to the next column). Since each index cycles from 0 to n-1 only once, you have at most 2*n comparisons unless all the rows and columns start with the same number, but we said a matrix of random numbers.
The time for a row/column comparison is n in the worst case, but is expected to be O(1) on average with random data.
So 2 sorts of O(nlogn), and a scan of 2*n*1 gives you an expected run time of O(nlogn). This is of course assuming random data. Worst case is still going to be n**3 for a large matrix with most elements the same value.