Non-recursive depth first search algorithm [closed] - algorithm

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 10 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I am looking for a non-recursive depth first search algorithm for a non-binary tree. Any help is very much appreciated.

DFS:
list nodes_to_visit = {root};
while( nodes_to_visit isn't empty ) {
currentnode = nodes_to_visit.take_first();
nodes_to_visit.prepend( currentnode.children );
//do something
}
BFS:
list nodes_to_visit = {root};
while( nodes_to_visit isn't empty ) {
currentnode = nodes_to_visit.take_first();
nodes_to_visit.append( currentnode.children );
//do something
}
The symmetry of the two is quite cool.
Update: As pointed out, take_first() removes and returns the first element in the list.

You would use a stack that holds the nodes that were not visited yet:
stack.push(root)
while !stack.isEmpty() do
node = stack.pop()
for each node.childNodes do
stack.push(stack)
endfor
// …
endwhile

If you have pointers to parent nodes, you can do it without additional memory.
def dfs(root):
node = root
while True:
visit(node)
if node.first_child:
node = node.first_child # walk down
else:
while not node.next_sibling:
if node is root:
return
node = node.parent # walk up ...
node = node.next_sibling # ... and right
Note that if the child nodes are stored as an array rather than through sibling pointers, the next sibling can be found as:
def next_sibling(node):
try:
i = node.parent.child_nodes.index(node)
return node.parent.child_nodes[i+1]
except (IndexError, AttributeError):
return None

Use a stack to track your nodes
Stack<Node> s;
s.prepend(tree.head);
while(!s.empty) {
Node n = s.poll_front // gets first node
// do something with q?
for each child of n: s.prepend(child)
}

An ES6 implementation based on biziclops great answer:
root = {
text: "root",
children: [{
text: "c1",
children: [{
text: "c11"
}, {
text: "c12"
}]
}, {
text: "c2",
children: [{
text: "c21"
}, {
text: "c22"
}]
}, ]
}
console.log("DFS:")
DFS(root, node => node.children, node => console.log(node.text));
console.log("BFS:")
BFS(root, node => node.children, node => console.log(node.text));
function BFS(root, getChildren, visit) {
let nodesToVisit = [root];
while (nodesToVisit.length > 0) {
const currentNode = nodesToVisit.shift();
nodesToVisit = [
...nodesToVisit,
...(getChildren(currentNode) || []),
];
visit(currentNode);
}
}
function DFS(root, getChildren, visit) {
let nodesToVisit = [root];
while (nodesToVisit.length > 0) {
const currentNode = nodesToVisit.shift();
nodesToVisit = [
...(getChildren(currentNode) || []),
...nodesToVisit,
];
visit(currentNode);
}
}

While "use a stack" might work as the answer to contrived interview question, in reality, it's just doing explicitly what a recursive program does behind the scenes.
Recursion uses the programs built-in stack. When you call a function, it pushes the arguments to the function onto the stack and when the function returns it does so by popping the program stack.

PreOrderTraversal is same as DFS in binary tree. You can do the same recursion
taking care of Stack as below.
public void IterativePreOrder(Tree root)
{
if (root == null)
return;
Stack s<Tree> = new Stack<Tree>();
s.Push(root);
while (s.Count != 0)
{
Tree b = s.Pop();
Console.Write(b.Data + " ");
if (b.Right != null)
s.Push(b.Right);
if (b.Left != null)
s.Push(b.Left);
}
}
The general logic is, push a node(starting from root) into the Stack, Pop() it and Print() value. Then if it has children( left and right) push them into the stack - push Right first so that you will visit Left child first(after visiting node itself). When stack is empty() you will have visited all nodes in Pre-Order.

Non-recursive DFS using ES6 generators
class Node {
constructor(name, childNodes) {
this.name = name;
this.childNodes = childNodes;
this.visited = false;
}
}
function *dfs(s) {
let stack = [];
stack.push(s);
stackLoop: while (stack.length) {
let u = stack[stack.length - 1]; // peek
if (!u.visited) {
u.visited = true; // grey - visited
yield u;
}
for (let v of u.childNodes) {
if (!v.visited) {
stack.push(v);
continue stackLoop;
}
}
stack.pop(); // black - all reachable descendants were processed
}
}
It deviates from typical non-recursive DFS to easily detect when all reachable descendants of given node were processed and to maintain the current path in the list/stack.

Suppose you want to execute a notification when each node in a graph is visited. The simple recursive implementation is:
void DFSRecursive(Node n, Set<Node> visited) {
visited.add(n);
for (Node x : neighbors_of(n)) { // iterate over all neighbors
if (!visited.contains(x)) {
DFSRecursive(x, visited);
}
}
OnVisit(n); // callback to say node is finally visited, after all its non-visited neighbors
}
Ok, now you want a stack-based implementation because your example doesn't work. Complex graphs might for instance cause this to blow the stack of your program and you need to implement a non-recursive version. The biggest issue is to know when to issue a notification.
The following pseudo-code works (mix of Java and C++ for readability):
void DFS(Node root) {
Set<Node> visited;
Set<Node> toNotify; // nodes we want to notify
Stack<Node> stack;
stack.add(root);
toNotify.add(root); // we won't pop nodes from this until DFS is done
while (!stack.empty()) {
Node current = stack.pop();
visited.add(current);
for (Node x : neighbors_of(current)) {
if (!visited.contains(x)) {
stack.add(x);
toNotify.add(x);
}
}
}
// Now issue notifications. toNotifyStack might contain duplicates (will never
// happen in a tree but easily happens in a graph)
Set<Node> notified;
while (!toNotify.empty()) {
Node n = toNotify.pop();
if (!toNotify.contains(n)) {
OnVisit(n); // issue callback
toNotify.add(n);
}
}
It looks complicated but the extra logic needed for issuing notifications exists because you need to notify in reverse order of visit - DFS starts at root but notifies it last, unlike BFS which is very simple to implement.
For kicks, try following graph:
nodes are s, t, v and w.
directed edges are:
s->t, s->v, t->w, v->w, and v->t.
Run your own implementation of DFS and the order in which nodes should be visited must be:
w, t, v, s
A clumsy implementation of DFS would maybe notify t first and that indicates a bug. A recursive implementation of DFS would always reach w last.

FULL example WORKING code, without stack:
import java.util.*;
class Graph {
private List<List<Integer>> adj;
Graph(int numOfVertices) {
this.adj = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < numOfVertices; ++i)
adj.add(i, new ArrayList<>());
}
void addEdge(int v, int w) {
adj.get(v).add(w); // Add w to v's list.
}
void DFS(int v) {
int nodesToVisitIndex = 0;
List<Integer> nodesToVisit = new ArrayList<>();
nodesToVisit.add(v);
while (nodesToVisitIndex < nodesToVisit.size()) {
Integer nextChild= nodesToVisit.get(nodesToVisitIndex++);// get the node and mark it as visited node by inc the index over the element.
for (Integer s : adj.get(nextChild)) {
if (!nodesToVisit.contains(s)) {
nodesToVisit.add(nodesToVisitIndex, s);// add the node to the HEAD of the unvisited nodes list.
}
}
System.out.println(nextChild);
}
}
void BFS(int v) {
int nodesToVisitIndex = 0;
List<Integer> nodesToVisit = new ArrayList<>();
nodesToVisit.add(v);
while (nodesToVisitIndex < nodesToVisit.size()) {
Integer nextChild= nodesToVisit.get(nodesToVisitIndex++);// get the node and mark it as visited node by inc the index over the element.
for (Integer s : adj.get(nextChild)) {
if (!nodesToVisit.contains(s)) {
nodesToVisit.add(s);// add the node to the END of the unvisited node list.
}
}
System.out.println(nextChild);
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Graph g = new Graph(5);
g.addEdge(0, 1);
g.addEdge(0, 2);
g.addEdge(1, 2);
g.addEdge(2, 0);
g.addEdge(2, 3);
g.addEdge(3, 3);
g.addEdge(3, 1);
g.addEdge(3, 4);
System.out.println("Breadth First Traversal- starting from vertex 2:");
g.BFS(2);
System.out.println("Depth First Traversal- starting from vertex 2:");
g.DFS(2);
}}
output:
Breadth First Traversal- starting from vertex 2:
2
0
3
1
4
Depth First Traversal- starting from vertex 2:
2
3
4
1
0

Just wanted to add my python implementation to the long list of solutions. This non-recursive algorithm has discovery and finished events.
worklist = [root_node]
visited = set()
while worklist:
node = worklist[-1]
if node in visited:
# Node is finished
worklist.pop()
else:
# Node is discovered
visited.add(node)
for child in node.children:
worklist.append(child)

You can use a stack. I implemented graphs with Adjacency Matrix:
void DFS(int current){
for(int i=1; i<N; i++) visit_table[i]=false;
myStack.push(current);
cout << current << " ";
while(!myStack.empty()){
current = myStack.top();
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
if(AdjMatrix[current][i] == 1){
if(visit_table[i] == false){
myStack.push(i);
visit_table[i] = true;
cout << i << " ";
}
break;
}
else if(!myStack.empty())
myStack.pop();
}
}
}

DFS iterative in Java:
//DFS: Iterative
private Boolean DFSIterative(Node root, int target) {
if (root == null)
return false;
Stack<Node> _stack = new Stack<Node>();
_stack.push(root);
while (_stack.size() > 0) {
Node temp = _stack.peek();
if (temp.data == target)
return true;
if (temp.left != null)
_stack.push(temp.left);
else if (temp.right != null)
_stack.push(temp.right);
else
_stack.pop();
}
return false;
}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLZhSSXAwxI
Just watched this video and came out with implementation. It looks easy for me to understand. Please critique this.
visited_node={root}
stack.push(root)
while(!stack.empty){
unvisited_node = get_unvisited_adj_nodes(stack.top());
If (unvisited_node!=null){
stack.push(unvisited_node);
visited_node+=unvisited_node;
}
else
stack.pop()
}

Using Stack, here are the steps to follow: Push the first vertex on the stack then,
If possible, visit an adjacent unvisited vertex, mark it,
and push it on the stack.
If you can’t follow step 1, then, if possible, pop a vertex off the
stack.
If you can’t follow step 1 or step 2, you’re done.
Here's the Java program following the above steps:
public void searchDepthFirst() {
// begin at vertex 0
vertexList[0].wasVisited = true;
displayVertex(0);
stack.push(0);
while (!stack.isEmpty()) {
int adjacentVertex = getAdjacentUnvisitedVertex(stack.peek());
// if no such vertex
if (adjacentVertex == -1) {
stack.pop();
} else {
vertexList[adjacentVertex].wasVisited = true;
// Do something
stack.push(adjacentVertex);
}
}
// stack is empty, so we're done, reset flags
for (int j = 0; j < nVerts; j++)
vertexList[j].wasVisited = false;
}

Pseudo-code based on #biziclop's answer:
Using only basic constructs: variables, arrays, if, while and for
Functions getNode(id) and getChildren(id)
Assuming known number of nodes N
NOTE: I use array-indexing from 1, not 0.
Breadth-first
S = Array(N)
S[1] = 1; // root id
cur = 1;
last = 1
while cur <= last
id = S[cur]
node = getNode(id)
children = getChildren(id)
n = length(children)
for i = 1..n
S[ last+i ] = children[i]
end
last = last+n
cur = cur+1
visit(node)
end
Depth-first
S = Array(N)
S[1] = 1; // root id
cur = 1;
while cur > 0
id = S[cur]
node = getNode(id)
children = getChildren(id)
n = length(children)
for i = 1..n
// assuming children are given left-to-right
S[ cur+i-1 ] = children[ n-i+1 ]
// otherwise
// S[ cur+i-1 ] = children[i]
end
cur = cur+n-1
visit(node)
end

Here is a link to a java program showing DFS following both reccursive and non-reccursive methods and also calculating discovery and finish time, but no edge laleling.
public void DFSIterative() {
Reset();
Stack<Vertex> s = new Stack<>();
for (Vertex v : vertices.values()) {
if (!v.visited) {
v.d = ++time;
v.visited = true;
s.push(v);
while (!s.isEmpty()) {
Vertex u = s.peek();
s.pop();
boolean bFinished = true;
for (Vertex w : u.adj) {
if (!w.visited) {
w.visited = true;
w.d = ++time;
w.p = u;
s.push(w);
bFinished = false;
break;
}
}
if (bFinished) {
u.f = ++time;
if (u.p != null)
s.push(u.p);
}
}
}
}
}
Full source here.

Stack<Node> stack = new Stack<>();
stack.add(root);
while (!stack.isEmpty()) {
Node node = stack.pop();
System.out.print(node.getData() + " ");
Node right = node.getRight();
if (right != null) {
stack.push(right);
}
Node left = node.getLeft();
if (left != null) {
stack.push(left);
}
}

Related

DFS: confused by visiting, visited and un-visited

In the following codes from Leetcode discussions.
public class Solution {
public boolean validTree(int n, int[][] edges) {
int[] visited = new int[n];
List<List<Integer>> adjList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i=0; i<n; ++i) { adjList.add(new ArrayList<Integer>()); }
for (int[] edge: edges) {
adjList.get(edge[0]).add(edge[1]);
adjList.get(edge[1]).add(edge[0]);
}
if (hasCycle(-1, 0, visited, adjList)) { return false; } // has cycle
for (int v: visited) { if (v == 0) { return false; } } // not 1 single connected component
return true;
}
private boolean hasCycle(int pred, int vertex, int[] visited, List<List<Integer>> adjList) {
visited[vertex] = 1; // current vertex is being visited
for (Integer succ: adjList.get(vertex)) { // successors of current vertex
if (succ != pred) { // exclude current vertex's predecessor
if (visited[succ] == 1) { return true; } // ###back edge/loop detected!
else if (visited[succ] == 0) {
if (hasCycle(vertex, succ, visited, adjList)) { return true; }
}
}
}
visited[vertex] = 2;
return false;
}
}
My questions are:
1, As for if (visited[succ] == 1) { return true; } // back edge/loop detected! in DFS, I tried visited[succ] == 1 and visited[succ] >= 1, all of them work. I am confused what is the difference between ``visited[succ] == 1andvisited[succ] ==2```? Can they detect different types of circles?
2, It seems that if we use visited to store True and False (visited and un-visited), it still works (from another Leetcode topic). When should we use un-visited, visiting, visited? and When should we use un-visited, and visited? Any examples?
Thanks
Switching to visited[succ] >= 1 does not yield an equivalent algorithm: the current algorithm will detect Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), while the modified algorithm will detect only trees (all trees are DAGs, but not all DAGs are trees).
The algorithm uses 2 to allow DAG detection. If all you need is tree detection, you can switch to using Booleans; with DAGs, however, simply marking a vertex visited is no longer sufficient. Consider this simple graph:
If you leave visited["C"] at 1, the algorithm would report a cycle when it tries the A -> C edge.

Implementing the Dutch National Flag Program with Linked Lists

I wanted to sort a linked list containing 0s, 1s or 2s. Now, this is clearly a variant of the Dutch National Flag Problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_national_flag_problem
The algorithm for the same as given in the link is:
"Have the top group grow down from the top of the array, the bottom group grow up from the bottom, and keep the middle group just above the bottom. The algorithm stores the locations just below the top group, just above the bottom, and just above the middle in three indexes. At each step, examine the element just above the middle. If it belongs to the top group, swap it with the element just below the top. If it belongs in the bottom, swap it with the element just above the bottom. If it is in the middle, leave it. Update the appropriate index. Complexity is Θ(n) moves and examinations."
And a C++ implementation given for the same is:
void threeWayPartition(int data[], int size, int low, int high) {
int p = -1;
int q = size;
for (int i = 0; i < q;) {
if (data[i] == low) {
swap(data[i], data[++p]);
++i;
} else if (data[i] >= high) {
swap(data[i], data[--q]);
} else {
++i;
}
}
}
My only question is how do we traverse back in a linked list like we are doing here in an array?
A standard singly-linked list doesn't allow you to move backwards given a linked list cell. However, you could use a doubly-linked list, where each cell stores a next and a previous pointer. That would let you navigate the list forwards and backwards.
However, for the particular problem you're trying to solve, I don't think this is necessary. One major difference between algorithms on arrays and on linked lists is that when working with linked lists, you can rearrange the cells in the list to reorder the elements in the list. Consequently, the algorithm you've detailed above - which works by changing the contents of the array - might not actually be the most elegant algorithm on linked lists.
If you are indeed working with linked lists, one possible way to solve this problem would be the following:
Create lists holding all values that are 0, 1, or 2.
Remove all cells from the linked list and distribute them into the list of elements that are equal to 0, 1, or 2.
Concatenate these three lists together.
This does no memory allocation and purely works by rearranging the linked list cells. It still runs in time Θ(n), which is another plus. Additionally, you can do this without ever having to walk backwards (i.e. this works on a singly-linked list).
I'll leave the complete implementation to you, but as an example, here's simple C++ code to distribute the linked list cells into the zero, one, and two lists:
struct Cell {
int value;
Cell* next;
}
/* Pointers to the heads of the three lists. */
Cell* lists[3] = { NULL, NULL, NULL };
/* Distribute the cells across the lists. */
while (list != NULL) {
/* Cache a pointer to the next cell in the list, since we will be
* rewiring this linked list.
*/
Cell* next = list->next;
/* Prepend this cell to the list it belongs to. */
list->next = lists[list->value];
lists[list->value] = list;
/* Advance to the next cell in the list. */
list = next;
}
Hope this helps!
As others have said, there is no way to "back up" in a linked list without reverse links. Though it's not exactly an answer to your question, the sort can be easily accomplished with three queues implementing a bucket sort with three buckets.
The advantage of queues (vice pushing on stacks) is that the sort is stable. That is, if there are data in the list nodes (other than the 0,1,2-valued keys), these will remain in the same order for each key.
This is only one of many cases where the canonical algorithm for arrays is not the best for lists.
There is a very slick, simple way to implement the queues: circularly linked lists where the first node, say p, is the tail of the queue and consequently p->next is is the head. With this, the code is concise.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct node_s {
struct node_s *next;
int val;
int data;
} NODE;
// Add node to tail of queue q and return the new queue.
NODE *enqueue(NODE *q, NODE *node)
{
if (q) {
node->next = q->next;
q->next = node;
}
else node->next = node;
return node;
}
// Concatenate qa and qb and return the result.
NODE *cat(NODE *qa, NODE *qb)
{
NODE *head = qa->next;
qa->next = qb->next;
qb->next = head;
return qb;
}
// Sort a list where all values are 0, 1, or 2.
NODE *sort012(NODE *list)
{
NODE *next = NULL, *q[3] = { NULL, NULL, NULL};
for (NODE *p = list; p; p = next) {
next = p->next;
q[p->val] = enqueue(q[p->val], p);
}
NODE *result = cat(q[0], cat(q[1], q[2]));
// Now transform the circular queue to a simple linked list.
NODE *head = result->next;
result->next = NULL;
return head;
}
int main(void)
{
NODE *list = NULL;
int N = 100;
// Build a list of nodes for testing
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
NODE *p = malloc(sizeof(NODE));
p->val = rand() % 3;
p->data = N - i; // List ends up with data 1,2,3,..,N
p->next = list;
list = p;
}
list = sort012(list);
for (NODE *p = list; p; p = p->next)
printf("key val=%d, data=%d\n", p->val, p->data);
return 0;
}
This is now a complete simple test and it runs just fine.
This is untested. (I will try to test it if I get time.) But it ought to be at least very close to a solution.
Using a doubly linked list. If you have already implemented a linked list object and the related link list node object, and are able to traverse it in the forward direction it isn't a whole bunch more work to traverse in the reverse direction.
Assuming you have a Node object somewhat like:
public class Node
{
public Node Next;
public Object Value;
}
Then all you really need to do is change you Node class and you Insert method(s) up a little bit to keep track of of the Node that came previously:
public class Node
{
public Node Next;
public Node Previous;
public Object Value;
}
public void Insert(Node currentNode, Node insertedNode)
{
Node siblingNode = currentNode.Next;
insertedNode.Previous = currentNode;
insertedNode.Next = siblingNode;
if(siblingNode!= null)
siblingNode.previous = insertedNode;
currentNode.next = insertedNode;
}
PS Sorry, I didn't notice the edit that included the C++ stuff so it's more C#
Works for all cases by CHANGING NODES rather than NODE DATA.. Hoping its never too late!
METHOD(To throw some light on handling corner cases):
1. Keep three dummy nodes each for 0,1,2;
2. Iterate throught the list and add nodes to respective list.
3. Make the next of zero,one,two pointers as NULL.
4. Backup this last nodes of each list.
5. Now handle 8 different possible cases to join these list and Determine the HEAD.
zero one two
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
An implementation of this in C++.
Node* sortList(Node *head)
{
struct Node dummyzero,dummyone,dummytwo;
dummyzero.next = dummyone.next = dummytwo.next = NULL;
struct Node *zero =&dummyzero,*one = &dummyone,*two=&dummytwo;
Node *curr = head,*next=NULL;
while(curr)
{
next = curr->next;
if(curr->data==0)
{
zero->next = curr;
zero = zero->next;
}
else if(curr->data==1)
{
one->next = curr;
one = one->next;
}
else
{
two->next = curr;
two = two->next;
}
curr = next;
}
zero->next = one->next = two->next =NULL; //Since this dummynode, No segmentation fault here.
Node *zerolast = zero,*onelast = one,*twolast = two;
zero = dummyzero.next;
one = dummyone.next;
two = dummytwo.next;
if(zero==NULL)
{
if(one==NULL)
head = two;
else
{
head = one;
onelast->next = two;
}
}
else
{
head = zero;
if(one==NULL)
zerolast->next = two;
else
{
zerolast->next = one;
onelast->next = two;
}
}
return head;
}
The idea is to use dutch flag sorting algorithm, with a slight modification:
sort 0's and 1's as per dutch flag method,
But for 2's instead of adding them at the end of list, keep them in a separate linked list.
And finally append the 2's list to the sorted list of 0's and 1's.
Node * sort012_linked_list(Node * head) {
if (!head || !head->next)
return head;
Node * head_of_2s = NULL;
Node * prev = NULL;
Node * curr = head;
while (curr) {
if (curr->data == 0) {
if (prev == NULL || prev->data == 0) {
prev = curr;
curr = curr->next;
}
else {
prev->next = curr->next;
curr->next = head;
head = curr;
curr = prev->next;
}
}
else if (curr->data == 1) {
prev = curr;
curr = curr->next;
}
else { // curr->data == 2
if (prev == NULL) {
head = curr->next;
curr->next = head_of_2s;
head_of_2s = curr;
curr = head;
}
else {
prev->next = curr->next;
curr->next = head_of_2s;
head_of_2s = curr;
curr = prev->next;
}
}
}
if (prev)
prev->next = head_of_2s;
return head;
}

Binary tree level order traversal

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;
}
}

Cycle finding algorithm

I need do find a cycle beginning and ending at given point. It is not guaranteed that it exists.
I use bool[,] points to indicate which point can be in cycle. Poins can be only on grid. points indicates if given point on grid can be in cycle.
I need to find this cycle using as minimum number of points.
One point can be used only once.
Connection can be only vertical or horizontal.
Let this be our points (red is starting point):
removing dead ImageShack links
I realized that I can do this:
while(numberOfPointsChanged)
{
//remove points that are alone in row or column
}
So i have:
removing dead ImageShack links
Now, I can find the path.
removing dead ImageShack links
But what if there are points that are not deleted by this loop but should not be in path?
I have written code:
class MyPoint
{
public int X { get; set; }
public int Y { get; set; }
public List<MyPoint> Neighbours = new List<MyPoint>();
public MyPoint parent = null;
public bool marked = false;
}
private static MyPoint LoopSearch2(bool[,] mask, int supIndexStart, int recIndexStart)
{
List<MyPoint> points = new List<MyPoint>();
//here begins translation bool[,] to list of points
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = recIndexStart, Y = supIndexStart });
for (int i = 0; i < mask.GetLength(0); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < mask.GetLength(1); j++)
{
if (mask[i, j])
{
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = j, Y = i });
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < points.Count; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < points.Count; j++)
{
if (i != j)
{
if (points[i].X == points[j].X || points[i].Y == points[j].Y)
{
points[i].Neighbours.Add(points[j]);
}
}
}
}
//end of translating
List<MyPoint> queue = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint start = (points[0]); //beginning point
start.marked = true; //it is marked
MyPoint last=null; //last point. this will be returned
queue.Add(points[0]);
while(queue.Count>0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First(); //taking point from queue
queue.Remove(current); //removing it
foreach(MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours) //checking Neighbours
{
if (!neighbour.marked) //in neighbour isn't marked adding it to queue
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
//if neighbour is marked checking if it is startig point and if neighbour's parent is current point. if it is not that means that loop already got here so we start searching parents to got to starting point
else if(!neighbour.Equals(start) && !neighbour.parent.Equals(current))
{
current = neighbour;
while(true)
{
if (current.parent.Equals(start))
{
last = current;
break;
}
else
current = current.parent;
}
break;
}
}
}
return last;
}
But it doesn't work. The path it founds contains two points: start and it's first neighbour.
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT:
Forgot to mention... After horizontal connection there has to be vertical, horizontal, vertical and so on...
What is more in each row and column there need to be max two points (two or none) that are in the cycle. But this condition is the same as "The cycle has to be the shortest one".
First of all, you should change your representation to a more efficient one. You should make vertex a structure/class, which keeps the list of the connected vertices.
Having changed the representation, you can easily find the shortest cycle using breadth-first search.
You can speed the search up with the following trick: traverse the graph in the breadth-first order, marking the traversed vertices (and storing the "parent vertex" number on the way to the root at each vertex). AS soon as you find an already marked vertex, the search is finished. You can find the two paths from the found vertex to the root by walking back by the stored "parent" vertices.
Edit:
Are you sure you code is right? I tried the following:
while (queue.Count > 0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First(); //taking point from queue
queue.Remove(current); //removing it
foreach (MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours) //checking Neighbours
{
if (!neighbour.marked) //if neighbour isn't marked adding it to queue
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
else if (!neighbour.Equals(current.parent)) // not considering own parent
{
// found!
List<MyPoint> loop = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint p = current;
do
{
loop.Add(p);
p = p.parent;
}
while (p != null);
p = neighbour;
while (!p.Equals(start))
{
loop.Add(p);
p = p.parent;
}
return loop;
}
}
}
return null;
instead of the corresponding part in your code (I changed the return type to List<MyPoint>, too). It works and correctly finds a smaller loop, consisting of 3 points: the red point, the point directly above and the point directly below.
That is what I have done. I don't know if it is optimised but it does work correctly. I have not done the sorting of the points as #marcog suggested.
private static bool LoopSearch2(bool[,] mask, int supIndexStart, int recIndexStart, out List<MyPoint> path)
{
List<MyPoint> points = new List<MyPoint>();
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = recIndexStart, Y = supIndexStart });
for (int i = 0; i < mask.GetLength(0); i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < mask.GetLength(1); j++)
{
if (mask[i, j])
{
points.Add(new MyPoint { X = j, Y = i });
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < points.Count; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < points.Count; j++)
{
if (i != j)
{
if (points[i].X == points[j].X || points[i].Y == points[j].Y)
{
points[i].Neighbours.Add(points[j]);
}
}
}
}
List<MyPoint> queue = new List<MyPoint>();
MyPoint start = (points[0]);
start.marked = true;
queue.Add(points[0]);
path = new List<MyPoint>();
bool found = false;
while(queue.Count>0)
{
MyPoint current = queue.First();
queue.Remove(current);
foreach (MyPoint neighbour in current.Neighbours)
{
if (!neighbour.marked)
{
neighbour.marked = true;
neighbour.parent = current;
queue.Add(neighbour);
}
else
{
if (neighbour.parent != null && neighbour.parent.Equals(current))
continue;
if (current.parent == null)
continue;
bool previousConnectionHorizontal = current.parent.Y == current.Y;
bool currentConnectionHorizontal = current.Y == neighbour.Y;
if (previousConnectionHorizontal != currentConnectionHorizontal)
{
MyPoint prev = current;
while (true)
{
path.Add(prev);
if (prev.Equals(start))
break;
prev = prev.parent;
}
path.Reverse();
prev = neighbour;
while (true)
{
if (prev.Equals(start))
break;
path.Add(prev);
prev = prev.parent;
}
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (found) break;
}
if (found) break;
}
if (path.Count == 0)
{
path = null;
return false;
}
return true;
}
Your points removal step is worst case O(N^3) if implemented poorly, with the worst case being stripping a single point in each iteration. And since it doesn't always save you that much computation in the cycle detection, I'd avoid doing it as it also adds an extra layer of complexity to the solution.
Begin by creating an adjacency list from the set of points. You can do this efficiently in O(NlogN) if you sort the points by X and Y (separately) and iterate through the points in order of X and Y. Then to find the shortest cycle length (determined by number of points), start a BFS from each point by initially throwing all points on the queue. As you traverse an edge, store the source of the path along with the current point. Then you will know when the BFS returns to the source, in which case we've found a cycle. If you end up with an empty queue before finding a cycle, then none exists. Be careful not to track back immediately to the previous point or you will end up with a defunct cycle formed by two points. You might also want to avoid, for example, a cycle formed by the points (0, 0), (0, 2) and (0, 1) as this forms a straight line.
The BFS potentially has a worst case of being exponential, but I believe such a case can either be proven to not exist or be extremely rare as the denser the graph the quicker you'll find a cycle while the sparser the graph the smaller your queue will be. On average it is more likely to be closer to the same runtime as the adjacency list construction, or in the worst realistic cases O(N^2).
I think that I'd use an adapted variant of Dijkstra's algorithm which stops and returns the cycle whenever it arrives to any node for the second time. If this never happens, you don't have a cycle.
This approach should be much more efficient than a breadth-first or depth-first search, especially if you have many nodes. It is guarateed that you'll only visit each node once, thereby you have a linear runtime.

How would you print out the data in a binary tree, level by level, starting at the top?

This is an interview question
I think of a solution.
It uses queue.
public Void BFS()
{
Queue q = new Queue();
q.Enqueue(root);
Console.WriteLine(root.Value);
while (q.count > 0)
{
Node n = q.DeQueue();
if (n.left !=null)
{
Console.Writeln(n.left);
q.EnQueue(n.left);
}
if (n.right !=null)
{
Console.Writeln(n.right);
q.EnQueue(n.right);
}
}
}
Can anything think of better solution than this, which doesn't use Queue?
Level by level traversal is known as Breadth-first traversal. Using a Queue is the proper way to do this. If you wanted to do a depth first traversal you would use a stack.
The way you have it is not quite standard though.
Here's how it should be.
public Void BFS()
{
Queue q = new Queue();
q.Enqueue(root);//You don't need to write the root here, it will be written in the loop
while (q.count > 0)
{
Node n = q.DeQueue();
Console.Writeln(n.Value); //Only write the value when you dequeue it
if (n.left !=null)
{
q.EnQueue(n.left);//enqueue the left child
}
if (n.right !=null)
{
q.EnQueue(n.right);//enque the right child
}
}
}
Edit
Here's the algorithm at work.
Say you had a tree like so:
1
/ \
2 3
/ / \
4 5 6
First, the root (1) would be enqueued. The loop is then entered.
first item in queue (1) is dequeued and printed.
1's children are enqueued from left to right, the queue now contains {2, 3}
back to start of loop
first item in queue (2) is dequeued and printed
2's children are enqueued form left to right, the queue now contains {3, 4}
back to start of loop
...
The queue will contain these values over each loop
1: {1}
2: {2, 3}
3: {3, 4}
4: {4, 5, 6}
5: {5, 6}
6: {6}
7: {}//empty, loop terminates
Output:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Since the question requires printing the tree level by level, there should be a way to determine when to print the new line character on the console. Here's my code which tries to do the same by appending NewLine node to the queue,
void PrintByLevel(Node *root)
{
Queue q;
Node *newline = new Node("\n");
Node *v;
q->enque(root);
q->enque(newline);
while(!q->empty()) {
v = q->deque();
if(v == newline) {
printf("\n");
if(!q->empty())
q->enque(newline);
}
else {
printf("%s", v->val);
if(v->Left)
q-enque(v->left);
if(v->right)
q->enque(v->right);
}
}
delete newline;
}
Let's see some Scala solutions. First, I'll define a very basic binary tree:
case class Tree[+T](value: T, left: Option[Tree[T]], right: Option[Tree[T]])
We'll use the following tree:
1
/ \
2 3
/ / \
4 5 6
You define the tree like this:
val myTree = Tree(1,
Some(Tree(2,
Some(Tree(4, None, None)),
None
)
),
Some(Tree(3,
Some(Tree(5, None, None)),
Some(Tree(6, None, None))
)
)
)
We'll define a breadthFirst function which will traverse the tree applying the desired function to each element. With this, we'll define a print function and use it like this:
def printTree(tree: Tree[Any]) =
breadthFirst(tree, (t: Tree[Any]) => println(t.value))
printTree(myTree)
Now, Scala solution, recursive, lists but no queues:
def breadthFirst[T](t: Tree[T], f: Tree[T] => Unit): Unit = {
def traverse(trees: List[Tree[T]]): Unit = trees match {
case Nil => // do nothing
case _ =>
val children = for{tree <- trees
Some(child) <- List(tree.left, tree.right)}
yield child
trees map f
traverse(children)
}
traverse(List(t))
}
Next, Scala solution, queue, no recursion:
def breadthFirst[T](t: Tree[T], f: Tree[T] => Unit): Unit = {
import scala.collection.mutable.Queue
val queue = new Queue[Option[Tree[T]]]
import queue._
enqueue(Some(t))
while(!isEmpty)
dequeue match {
case Some(tree) =>
f(tree)
enqueue(tree.left)
enqueue(tree.right)
case None =>
}
}
That recursive solution is fully functional, though I have an uneasy feeling that it can be further simplified.
The queue version is not functional, but it is highly effective. The bit about importing an object is unusual in Scala, but put to good use here.
C++:
struct node{
string key;
struct node *left, *right;
};
void printBFS(struct node *root){
std::queue<struct node *> q;
q.push(root);
while(q.size() > 0){
int levelNodes = q.size();
while(levelNodes > 0){
struct node *p = q.front();
q.pop();
cout << " " << p->key ;
if(p->left != NULL) q.push(p->left);
if(p->right != NULL) q.push(p->right);
levelNodes--;
}
cout << endl;
}
}
Input :
Balanced tree created from:
string a[] = {"a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","i","j","k","l","m","n"};
Output:
g
c k
a e i m
b d f h j l n
Algorithm:
Create an ArrayList of Linked List Nodes.
Do the level order traversal using queue(Breadth First Search).
For getting all the nodes at each level, before you take out a node from queue, store the size of the queue in a variable, say you call it as levelNodes.
Now while levelNodes > 0, take out the nodes and print it and add their children into the queue.
After this while loop put a line break.
P.S: I know the OP said, no queue. My answer is just to show if someone is looking for a C++ solution using queue.
public class LevelOrderTraversalQueue {
Queue<Nodes> qe = new LinkedList<Nodes>();
public void printLevelOrder(Nodes root)
{
if(root == null) return;
qe.add(root);
int count = qe.size();
while(count!=0)
{
System.out.print(qe.peek().getValue());
System.out.print(" ");
if(qe.peek().getLeft()!=null) qe.add(qe.peek().getLeft());
if(qe.peek().getRight()!=null) qe.add(qe.peek().getRight());
qe.remove(); count = count -1;
if(count == 0 )
{
System.out.println(" ");
count = qe.size();
}
}
}
}
In order to print out by level, you can store the level information with the node as a tuple to add to the queue. Then you can print a new line whenever the level is changed. Here is a Python code to do so.
from collections import deque
class BTreeNode:
def __init__(self, data, left=None, right=None):
self.data = data
self.left = left
self.right = right
def printLevel(self):
""" Breadth-first traversal, print out the data by level """
level = 0
lastPrintedLevel = 0
visit = deque([])
visit.append((self, level))
while len(visit) != 0:
item = visit.popleft()
if item[1] != lastPrintedLevel: #New line for a new level
lastPrintedLevel +=1
print
print item[0].data,
if item[0].left != None:
visit.append((item[0].left, item[1] + 1))
if item[0].right != None:
visit.append((item[0].right, item[1] + 1))
Try this one (Complete code) :
class HisTree
{
public static class HisNode
{
private int data;
private HisNode left;
private HisNode right;
public HisNode() {}
public HisNode(int _data , HisNode _left , HisNode _right)
{
data = _data;
right = _right;
left = _left;
}
public HisNode(int _data)
{
data = _data;
}
}
public static int height(HisNode root)
{
if (root == null)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
return 1 + Math.max(height(root.left), height(root.right));
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// 1
// / \
// / \
// 2 3
// / \ / \
// 4 5 6 7
// /
// 21
HisNode root1 = new HisNode(3 , new HisNode(6) , new HisNode(7));
HisNode root3 = new HisNode(4 , new HisNode(21) , null);
HisNode root2 = new HisNode(2 , root3 , new HisNode(5));
HisNode root = new HisNode(1 , root2 , root1);
printByLevels(root);
}
private static void printByLevels(HisNode root) {
List<HisNode> nodes = Arrays.asList(root);
printByLevels(nodes);
}
private static void printByLevels(List<HisNode> nodes)
{
if (nodes == null || (nodes != null && nodes.size() <= 0))
{
return;
}
List <HisNode> nodeList = new LinkedList<HisNode>();
for (HisNode node : nodes)
{
if (node != null)
{
System.out.print(node.data);
System.out.print(" , ");
nodeList.add(node.left);
nodeList.add(node.right);
}
}
System.out.println();
if (nodeList != null && !CheckIfNull(nodeList))
{
printByLevels(nodeList);
}
else
{
return;
}
}
private static boolean CheckIfNull(List<HisNode> list)
{
for(HisNode elem : list)
{
if (elem != null)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
I think what you expecting is to print the nodes at each level either separated by a space or a comma and the levels be separated by a new line. This is how I would code up the algorithm. We know that when we do a breadth-first search on a graph or tree and insert the nodes in a queue, all nodes in the queue coming out will be either at the same level as the one previous or a new level which is parent level + 1 and nothing else.
So when you are at a level keep printing out the node values and as soon as you find that the level of the node increases by 1, then you insert a new line before starting to print all the nodes at that level.
This is my code which does not use much memory and only the queue is needed for everything.
Assuming the tree starts from the root.
queue = [(root, 0)] # Store the node along with its level.
prev = 0
while queue:
node, level = queue.pop(0)
if level == prev:
print(node.val, end = "")
else:
print()
print(node.val, end = "")
if node.left:
queue.append((node.left, level + 1))
if node.right:
queue.append((node.right, level + 1))
prev = level
At the end all you need is the queue for all the processing.
I tweaked the answer so that it shows the null nodes and prints it by height.
Was actually fairly decent for testing the balance of a red black tree. can
also add the color into the print line to check black height.
Queue<node> q = new Queue<node>();
int[] arr = new int[]{1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256};
int i =0;
int b = 0;
int keeper = 0;
public void BFS()
{
q.Enqueue(root);
while (q.Count > 0)
{
node n = q.Dequeue();
if (i == arr[b])
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write("\r\n"+"("+n.id+")");
b++;
i =0 ;
}
else {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write("(" + n.id + ")");
}
i++;
if (n.id != -1)
{
if (n.left != null)
{
q.Enqueue(n.left);
}
else
{
node c = new node();
c.id = -1;
c.color = 'b';
q.Enqueue(c);
}
if (n.right != null)
{
q.Enqueue(n.right);
}
else
{
node c = new node();
c.id = -1;
c.color = 'b';
q.Enqueue(c);
}
}
}
i = 0;
b = 0;
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write("\r\n");
}
Of course you don't need to use queue. This is in python.
# Function to print level order traversal of tree
def printLevelOrder(root):
h = height(root)
for i in range(1, h+1):
printGivenLevel(root, i)
# Print nodes at a given level
def printGivenLevel(root , level):
if root is None:
return
if level == 1:
print "%d" %(root.data),
elif level > 1 :
printGivenLevel(root.left , level-1)
printGivenLevel(root.right , level-1)
""" Compute the height of a tree--the number of nodes
along the longest path from the root node down to
the farthest leaf node
"""
def height(node):
if node is None:
return 0
else :
# Compute the height of each subtree
lheight = height(node.left)
rheight = height(node.right)
return max(lheight, reight)
Try with below code.
public void printLevelOrder(TreeNode root) {
if (root == null) {
return;
}
Queue<TreeNode> nodesToVisit = new LinkedList<>();
nodesToVisit.add(root);
int count = nodesToVisit.size();
while (count != 0) {
TreeNode node = nodesToVisit.remove();
System.out.print(" " + node.data);
if (node.left != null) {
nodesToVisit.add(node.left);
}
if (node.right != null) {
nodesToVisit.add(node.right);
}
count--;
if (count == 0) {
System.out.println("");
count = nodesToVisit.size();
}
}
}
here is my answer.
//for level order traversal
func forEachLevelOrder(_ visit : (TreeNode) -> Void) {
visit(self)
var queue = Queue<TreeNode>()
children.forEach {
queue.Enqueue($0)
}
while let node = queue.Dequeue() {
visit(node)
node.children.forEach { queue.Enqueue($0)}
}
}
children is an array here that stores the children of a node.

Resources