from Mexico. The truth is almost never asked or open new issues, because really the forum and not only this, if not to work instead of the network, you can find plenty of information about topic x or y, however this time I feel very defeated.
I have two years of recursion.
Define the following recursive algorithms.
a. Calculate the next n integers.
At first not referred to the master with this is that if the algorithm returns a sum, or set of numbers. Furthermore, although in principle and algorithm design for the second case is asked to resolve by its expression as a recurrence relation ... this is where I am more than lost, not how to express this as a RR. And that can be solved
b. Calculate the minimum of a set of integers
In the other case suppose that calls for the minimum of a set of integers. that's solved, but the fact and pass it to a RR fix, has left me completely flooded.
APPRECIATE ANY HELP, thanks
Answering on b)
You have a set of integers. You pick one and you know that minimal element is either that you've picked or the minimal is still in the set. Recursivly you call function unless you pick all elements from set, you assume that minimum of set that contain no elements is infinity. Then your recurrence is going back updateing the minimal value.
minimum (S) = min(any element, minimum(Rest of S))
if (S is empty) then minimum(empty) = infinity.
Not an implementation in any language cause surely depend on representation of set.
P.S why doing this recursivly?
Related
I don't generally ask questions on SO, so if this question seems inappropriate for SO, just tell me (help would still be appreciated of course).
I'm still a student and I'm currently taking a class in Algorithms. We recently learned about the Branch-and-Bound paradigm and since I didn't fully understand it, I tried to do some exercises in our course book. I came across this particular instance of the Set Cover problem with a special twist:
Let U be a set of elements and S = {S1, S2, ..., Sn} a set of subsets of U, where the union of all sets Si equals U. Outline a Branch-and-Bound algorithm to find a minimal subset Q of S, so that for all elements u in U there are at least two sets in Q, which contain u. Specifically, elaborate how to split the problem up into subproblems and how to calculate upper and lower bounds.
My first thought was to sort all the sets Si in S in descending order, according to how many elements they contain which aren't yet covered at least twice by the currently chosen subsets of S, so our current instance of Q. I was then thinking of recursively solving this, where I choose the first set Si in the sorted order and make one recursive call, where I take this set Si and one where I don't (meaning from those recursive calls onwards the subset is no longer considered). If I choose it I would then go through each element in this chosen subset Si and increase a counter for all its elements (before the recursive call), so that I'll eventually know, when an element is already covered by two or more chosen subsets. Since I sort the not chosen sets Si for each recursive call, I would theoretically (in my mind at least) always be making the best possible choice for the moment. And since I basically create a binary tree of recursive calls, because I always make one call with the current best subset chosen and one where I don't I'll eventually cover all 2^n possibilities, meaning eventually I'll find the optimal solution.
My problem now is I don't know or rather understand how I would implement a heuristic for upper and lower bounds, so the algorithm can discard some of the paths in the binary tree, which will never be better than the current best Q. I would appreciate any help I could get.
Here's a simple lower bound heuristic: Find the set containing the largest number of not-yet-twice-covered elements. (It doesn't matter which set you pick if there are multiple sets with the same, largest possible number of these elements.) Suppose there are u of these elements in total, and this set contains k <= u of them. Then, you need to add at least u/k further sets before you have a solution. (Why? See if you can prove this.)
This lower bound works for the regular set cover problem too. As always with branch and bound, using it may or may not result in better overall performance on a given instance than simply using the "heuristic" that always returns 0.
First, some advice: don't re-sort S every time you recurse/loop. Sorting is an expensive operation (O(N log N)) so putting it in a loop or a recursion usually costs more than you gain from it. Generally you want to sort once at the beginning, and then leverage that sort throughout your algorithm.
The sort you've chosen, descending by the length of the S subsets is a good "greedy" ordering, so I'd say just do that upfront and don't re-sort after that. You don't get to skip over subsets that are not ideal within your recursion, but checking a redundant/non-ideal subset is still faster than re-sorting every time.
Now what upper/lower bounds can you use? Well generally, you want your bounds and bounds-checking to be as simple and efficient as possible because you are going to be checking them a lot.
With this in mind, an upper bounds is easy: use the shortest set-length solution that you've found so far. Initially set your upper-bounds as var bestQlength = int.MaxVal, some maximum value that is greater than n, the number of subsets in S. Then with every recursion you check if currentQ.length > bestQlength, if so then this branch is over the upper-bounds and you "prune" it. Obviously when you find a new solution, you also need to check if it is better (shorter) than your current bestQ and if so then update both bestQ and bestQlength at the same time.
A good lower bounds is a bit trickier, the simplest I can think of for this problem is: Before you add a new subset Si into your currentQ, check to see if Si has any elements that are not already in currentQ two or more times, if it does not, then this Si cannot contribute in any way to the currentQ solution that you are trying to build, so just skip it and move on to the next subset in S.
I have a list L of lists l[i] of elements e. I am looking for an algorithm that finds a minimum set S_min of elements such that at least one member of S_min occurs in each l.
I am not only curious to find a simple algorithm that does this for me, but also to learn what problems of this sort are actually called. I am sure there is something out there
I have implemented brute force algorithms that start with adding all those elements to S_min which occur in sets of len(l[i])=1. The rest is simple trial and error.
The problem you describe ist the vertex cover problem in hypergraphs, an optimization problem which is NP-hard in the general case but admits approximation algorithms for suitably bounded instances.
I need to know if is there any algorithm that allows to know beforehand, without searching for every possible solution to the the initial set, if we can reach a second given set.
For example:
[1,0,2,3,5,6,4,8,7] -> [2,3,4,5,8,0,7,1,6]
This algorithm would return True if the second set is reachable from the first one, and False otherwise.
I thought a bit about it and I can certainly say that if the initial set is solvable (it is possible to put all the squares in order) and so is the second one, then this algorithm would return True, because:
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,0,8] <-> [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,0] <-> [1,2,3,4,5,0,7,8,6]
For any given puzzle that is solvable it can be reversed to obtain the original set.
On the other hand, if one of the sets is solvable and the second one is not solvable the algorithm would surely return False because, if you could reach the solvable set starting on the unsolvable set than we would have a contradiction.
Now, the real problem is when both sets are unsolvable. For some reason I'm positive that given an unsolvable set, it is possible to reach any other unsolvable set configuration, since that's what happens when the set is solvable. But I can't find proof or any documentation on it! Can someone enlighten me?
Since there is a finite amount of board states (9! = 362,880), there is a finite amount of translations between a pair for board states (9!^2 = 131,681,894,400 = 17 GB of information). So brute force once, and be happy for ever.
Consider a 3SAT instance with the following special locality property. Suppose there are n variables in the Boolean formula, and that they are numbered 1,2,3....n in such a way that each clause involves variables whose numbers are within +-10 of each other. Give a linear-time algorithm for solving such an instance of 3SAT.
I could not solve the problem but my intuition is that if we could map the problem in graph then may be solved but could not go much farther ..
This is a relatively straightforward dynamic programming problem. I'll describe a solution, ignoring the fairly straightforward indexing issues around either boundary.
After the m'th step we have the set of possible values for variables (m-10, m-9, ..., m+10) which could be solutions so far, each linked to a set of values for all previous variables that leads to solutions to equations 1..m.
For the m+1'th step we take each member of this possible solution set, ignore the m-10'th value, and consider each possibility for the m+11'th value. If the m+1'th equation is true, we add this to the next solution set, pointing to our history, only if that solution pattern has not already been added.
This lands us ready for the m+2nd step.
There are n steps required, each of which can have about 2 million possible cases to consider, so this is linear.
(Fun challenge. Modify this algorithm to not just find a solution, but to count how many solutions there are.)
I think you can just brute force it in poly time. Divide the clause list into two pieces. Exhaustive search over variables which are on both sides of the split. There are at most 30 of them, so that's 2^30 = O(1) settings to try. Once those variables are set, you can recursively solve both sides, each one is an independent SAT instance with n/2 variables.
My best shot so far:
A delivery vehicle needs to make a series of deliveries (d1,d2,...dn), and can do so in any order--in other words, all the possible permutations of the set D = {d1,d2,...dn} are valid solutions--but the particular solution needs to be determined before it leaves the base station at one end of the route (imagine that the packages need to be loaded in the vehicle LIFO, for example).
Further, the cost of the various permutations is not the same. It can be computed as the sum of the squares of distance traveled between di -1 and di, where d0 is taken to be the base station, with the caveat that any segment that involves a change of direction costs 3 times as much (imagine this is going on on a railroad or a pneumatic tube, and backing up disrupts other traffic).
Given the set of deliveries D represented as their distance from the base station (so abs(di-dj) is the distance between two deliveries) and an iterator permutations(D) which will produce each permutation in succession, find a permutation which has a cost less than or equal to that of any other permutation.
Now, a direct implementation from this description might lead to code like this:
function Cost(D) ...
function Best_order(D)
for D1 in permutations(D)
Found = true
for D2 in permutations(D)
Found = false if cost(D2) > cost(D1)
return D1 if Found
Which is O(n*n!^2), e.g. pretty awful--especially compared to the O(n log(n)) someone with insight would find, by simply sorting D.
My question: can you come up with a plausible problem description which would naturally lead the unwary into a worse (or differently awful) implementation of a sorting algorithm?
I assume you're using this question for an interview to see if the applicant can notice a simple solution in a seemingly complex question.
[This assumption is incorrect -- MarkusQ]
You give too much information.
The key to solving this is realizing that the points are in one dimension and that a sort is all that is required. To make this question more difficult hide this fact as much as possible.
The biggest clue is the distance formula. It introduces a penalty for changing directions. The first thing an that comes to my mind is minimizing this penalty. To remove the penalty I have to order them in a certain direction, this ordering is the natural sort order.
I would remove the penalty for changing directions, it's too much of a give away.
Another major clue is the input values to the algorithm: a list of integers. Give them a list of permutations, or even all permutations. That sets them up to thinking that a O(n!) algorithm might actually be expected.
I would phrase it as:
Given a list of all possible
permutations of n delivery locations,
where each permutation of deliveries
(d1, d2, ...,
dn) has a cost defined by:
Return permutation P such that the
cost of P is less than or equal to any
other permutation.
All that really needs to be done is read in the first permutation and sort it.
If they construct a single loop to compare the costs ask them what the big-o runtime of their algorithm is where n is the number of delivery locations (Another trap).
This isn't a direct answer, but I think more clarification is needed.
Is di allowed to be negative? If so, sorting alone is not enough, as far as I can see.
For example:
d0 = 0
deliveries = (-1,1,1,2)
It seems the optimal path in this case would be 1 > 2 > 1 > -1.
Edit: This might not actually be the optimal path, but it illustrates the point.
YOu could rephrase it, having first found the optimal solution, as
"Give me a proof that the following convination is the most optimal for the following set of rules, where optimal means the smallest number results from the sum of all stage costs, taking into account that all stages (A..Z) need to be present once and once only.
Convination:
A->C->D->Y->P->...->N
Stage costs:
A->B = 5,
B->A = 3,
A->C = 2,
C->A = 4,
...
...
...
Y->Z = 7,
Z->Y = 24."
That ought to keep someone busy for a while.
This reminds me of the Knapsack problem, more than the Traveling Salesman. But the Knapsack is also an NP-Hard problem, so you might be able to fool people to think up an over complex solution using dynamic programming if they correlate your problem with the Knapsack. Where the basic problem is:
can a value of at least V be achieved
without exceeding the weight W?
Now the problem is a fairly good solution can be found when V is unique, your distances, as such:
The knapsack problem with each type of
item j having a distinct value per
unit of weight (vj = pj/wj) is
considered one of the easiest
NP-complete problems. Indeed empirical
complexity is of the order of O((log
n)2) and very large problems can be
solved very quickly, e.g. in 2003 the
average time required to solve
instances with n = 10,000 was below 14
milliseconds using commodity personal
computers1.
So you might want to state that several stops/packages might share the same vj, inviting people to think about the really hard solution to:
However in the
degenerate case of multiple items
sharing the same value vj it becomes
much more difficult with the extreme
case where vj = constant being the
subset sum problem with a complexity
of O(2N/2N).
So if you replace the weight per value to distance per value, and state that several distances might actually share the same values, degenerate, some folk might fall in this trap.
Isn't this just the (NP-Hard) Travelling Salesman Problem? It doesn't seem likely that you're going to make it much harder.
Maybe phrasing the problem so that the actual algorithm is unclear - e.g. by describing the paths as single-rail railway lines so the person would have to infer from domain knowledge that backtracking is more costly.
What about describing the question in such a way that someone is tempted to do recursive comparisions - e.g. "can you speed up the algorithm by using the optimum max subset of your best (so far) results"?
BTW, what's the purpose of this - it sounds like the intent is to torture interviewees.
You need to be clearer on whether the delivery truck has to return to base (making it a round trip), or not. If the truck does return, then a simple sort does not produce the shortest route, because the square of the return from the furthest point to base costs so much. Missing some hops on the way 'out' and using them on the way back turns out to be cheaper.
If you trick someone into a bad answer (for example, by not giving them all the information) then is it their foolishness or your deception that has caused it?
How great is the wisdom of the wise, if they heed not their ego's lies?