Say S = 5 and N = 3 the solutions would look like - <0,0,5> <0,1,4> <0,2,3> <0,3,2> <5,0,0> <2,3,0> <3,2,0> <1,2,2> etc etc.
In the general case, N nested loops can be used to solve the problem. Run N nested loop, inside them check if the loop variables add upto S.
If we do not know N ahead of time, we can use a recursive solution. In each level, run a loop starting from 0 to N, and then call the function itself again. When we reach a depth of N, see if the numbers obtained add up to S.
Any other dynamic programming solution?
Try this recursive function:
f(s, n) = 1 if s = 0
= 0 if s != 0 and n = 0
= sum f(s - i, n - 1) over i in [0, s] otherwise
To use dynamic programming you can cache the value of f after evaluating it, and check if the value already exists in the cache before evaluating it.
There is a closed form formula : binomial(s + n - 1, s) or binomial(s+n-1,n-1)
Those numbers are the simplex numbers.
If you want to compute them, use the log gamma function or arbitrary precision arithmetic.
See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2455/geometric-proof-of-the-formula-for-simplex-numbers
I have my own formula for this. We, together with my friend Gio made an investigative report concerning this. The formula that we got is [2 raised to (n-1) - 1], where n is the number we are looking for how many addends it has.
Let's try.
If n is 1: its addends are o. There's no two or more numbers that we can add to get a sum of 1 (excluding 0). Let's try a higher number.
Let's try 4. 4 has addends: 1+1+1+1, 1+2+1, 1+1+2, 2+1+1, 1+3, 2+2, 3+1. Its total is 7.
Let's check with the formula. 2 raised to (4-1) - 1 = 2 raised to (3) - 1 = 8-1 =7.
Let's try 15. 2 raised to (15-1) - 1 = 2 raised to (14) - 1 = 16384 - 1 = 16383. Therefore, there are 16383 ways to add numbers that will equal to 15.
(Note: Addends are positive numbers only.)
(You can try other numbers, to check whether our formula is correct or not.)
This can be calculated in O(s+n) (or O(1) if you don't mind an approximation) in the following way:
Imagine we have a string with n-1 X's in it and s o's. So for your example of s=5, n=3, one example string would be
oXooXoo
Notice that the X's divide the o's into three distinct groupings: one of length 1, length 2, and length 2. This corresponds to your solution of <1,2,2>. Every possible string gives us a different solution, by counting the number of o's in a row (a 0 is possible: for example, XoooooX would correspond to <0,5,0>). So by counting the number of possible strings of this form, we get the answer to your question.
There are s+(n-1) positions to choose for s o's, so the answer is Choose(s+n-1, s).
There is a fixed formula to find the answer. If you want to find the number of ways to get N as the sum of R elements. The answer is always:
(N+R-1)!/((R-1)!*(N)!)
or in other words:
(N+R-1) C (R-1)
This actually looks a lot like a Towers of Hanoi problem, without the constraint of stacking disks only on larger disks. You have S disks that can be in any combination on N towers. So that's what got me thinking about it.
What I suspect is that there is a formula we can deduce that doesn't require the recursive programming. I'll need a bit more time though.
Related
Given an array of integers which are needed to be split into four
boxes such that sum of XOR's of the boxes is maximum.
I/P -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
O/P -- 9
Explanation: Box1--[1,2]
Box2--[1,2]
Box3--[1,2]
Box4--[]
I've tried using recursion but failed for larger test cases as the
Time Complexity is exponential. I'm expecting a solution using dynamic
programming.
def max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4,A,index,size):
if index == size:
return b1+b2+b3+b4
m=max(max_Xor(b1^A[index],b2,b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2^A[index],b3,b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3^A[index],b4,A,index+1,size),
max_Xor(b1,b2,b3,b4^A[index],A,index+1,size))
return m
def main():
print(max_Xor(0,0,0,0,A,0,len(A)))
Thanks in Advance!!
There are several things to speed up your algorithm:
Build in some start-up logic: it doesn't make sense to put anything into box 3 until boxes 1 & 2 are differentiated. In fact, you should generally have an order of precedence to keep you from repeating configurations in a different order.
Memoize your logic; this avoids repeating computations.
For large cases, take advantage of what value algebra exists.
This last item may turn out to be the biggest saving. For instance, if your longest numbers include several 5-bit and 4-bit numbers, it makes no sense to consider shorter numbers until you've placed those decently in the boxes, gaining maximum advantage for the leading bits. With only four boxes, you cannot have a num from 3-bit numbers that dominates a single misplaced 5-bit number.
Your goal is to place an odd number of 5-bit numbers into 3 or all 4 boxes; against this, check only whether this "pessimizes" bit 4 of the remaining numbers. For instance, given six 5-digit numbers (range 16-31) and a handful of small ones (0-7), your first consideration is to handle only combinations that partition the 5-digit numbers by (3, 1, 1, 1), as this leaves that valuable 5-bit turned on in each set.
With a more even mixture of values in your input, you'll also need to consider how to distribute the 4-bits for a similar "keep it odd" heuristic. Note that, as you work from largest to smallest, you need worry only about keeping it odd, and watching the following bit.
These techniques should let you prune your recursion enough to finish in time.
We can use Dynamic programming here to break the problem into smaller sets then store their result in a table. Then use already stored result to calculate answer for bigger set.
For example:
Input -- [1,2,1,2,1,2]
We need to divide the array consecutively into 4 boxed such that sum of XOR of all boxes is maximised.
Lets take your test case, break the problem into smaller sets and start solving for smaller set.
box = 1, num = [1,2,1,2,1,2]
ans = 1 3 2 0 1 3
Since we only have one box so all numbers will go into this box. We will store this answer into a table. Lets call the matrix as DP.
DP[1] = [1 3 2 0 1 3]
DP[i][j] stores answer for distributing 0-j numbers to i boxes.
now lets take the case where we have two boxes and we will take numbers one by one.
num = [1] since we only have one number it will go into the first box.
DP[1][0] = 1
Lets add another number.
num = [1 2]
now there can be two ways to put this new number into the box.
case 1: 2 will go to the First box. Since we already have answer
for both numbers in one box. we will just use that.
answer = DP[0][1] + 0 (Second box is empty)
case 2: 2 will go to second box.
answer = DP[0][0] + 2 (only 2 is present in the second box)
Maximum of the two cases will be stored in DP[1][1].
DP[1][1] = max(3+0, 1+2) = 3.
Now for num = [1 2 1].
Again for new number we have three cases.
box1 = [1 2 1], box2 = [], DP[0][2] + 0
box1 = [1 2], box2 = [1], DP[0][1] + 1
box1 = [1 ], box2 = [2 1], DP[0][0] + 2^1
Maximum of these three will be answer for DP[1][2].
Similarly we can find answer of num = [1 2 1 2 1 2] box = 4
1 3 2 0 1 3
1 3 4 6 5 3
1 3 4 6 7 9
1 3 4 6 7 9
Also note that a xor b xor a = b. you can use this property to get xor of a segment of an array in constant time as suggested in comments.
This way you can break the problem in smaller subset and use smaller set answer to compute for the bigger ones. Hope this helps. After understanding the concept you can go ahead and implement it with better time than exponential.
I would go bit by bit from the highest bit to the lowest bit. For every bit, try all combinations that distribute the still unused numbers that have that bit set so that an odd number of them is in each box, nothing else matters. Pick the best path overall. One issue that complicates this greedy method is that two boxes with a lower bit set can equal one box with the next higher bit set.
Alternatively, memoize the boxes state in your recursion as an ordered tuple.
Lagrange's four-square theorem proves that any natural number can be written as the sum of four square numbers. What I need is to find any one way to write a natural number x as sum of four square numbers for all 0 <= x <= N for any given upper limit N.
What I have done so far is find two-square sum representation for all the numbers <= N for which it is possible to find one, and saved them in an array called two_square_div. Then I used a greedy approach like following:
last_two_square_sum = 0
for num in 0..N
if num can be written as sum of two square
last_two_square_sum = num
other_last_two_square_sum = num - last_two_square_sum
four_square_div[num] = (two_square_div[last_two_square_sum], two_square_div[other_last_two_square_sum]
But this approach does not work for numbers like 23, for which last_two_square_sum = 20 other_last_two_square_sum = 3. But 3 can not be written as sum of two squares so this method fails.
So could anybody provide a correct O(N) solution or any helpful hint? Thank you.
Your algorithm should make more than one attempt (if it already does, then the exit condition must be improved).
23 can be written as 3 + 20, yes; but 3 is not a decomposable of order two and can't lead to a solution.
So you go on: next you try 4 + 19, and this time it's 19 that is rejected. Next you try 5, so 23-5 is 18, and 5 is 12 + 22 while 18 is 32 + 32.
(Of course this is not O(N) at all).
It is not clear to me how you arrive at 20 and not accept previous solutions; try posting the whole of the code.
Also, try asking on Math StackExchange.
There are N sticks placed in a straight line. Bob is planning to take few of these sticks. But whatever number of sticks he is going to take, he will take no two successive sticks.(i.e. if he is taking a stick i, he will not take i-1 and i+1 sticks.)
So given N, we need to calculate how many different set of sticks he could select. He need to take at least stick.
Example : Let N=3 then answer is 4.
The 4 sets are: (1, 3), (1), (2), and (3)
Main problem is that I want solution better than simple recursion. Can their be any formula for it? As am not able to crack it
It's almost identical to Fibonacci. The final solution is actually fibonacci(N)-1, but let's explain it in terms of actual sticks.
To begin with we disregard from the fact that he needs to pick up at least 1 stick. The solution in this case looks as follows:
If N = 0, there is 1 solution (the solution where he picks up 0 sticks)
If N = 1, there are 2 solutions (pick up the stick, or don't)
Otherwise he can choose to either
pick up the first stick and recurse on N-2 (since the second stick needs to be discarded), or
leave the first stick and recurse on N-1
After this computation is finished, we remove 1 from the result to avoid counting the case where he picks up 0 sticks in total.
Final solution in pseudo code:
int numSticks(int N) {
return N == 0 ? 1
: N == 1 ? 2
: numSticks(N-2) + numSticks(N-1);
}
solution = numSticks(X) - 1;
As you can see numSticks is actually Fibonacci, which can be solved efficiently using for instance memoization.
Let the number of sticks taken by Bob be r.
The problem has a bijection to the number of binary vectors with exactly r 1's, and no two adjacent 1's.
This is solveable by first placing the r 1's , and you are left with exactly n-r 0's to place between them and in the sides. However, you must place r-1 0's between the 1's, so you are left with exactly n-r-(r-1) = n-2r+1 "free" 0's.
The number of ways to arrange such vectors is now given as:
(1) = Choose(n-2r+1 + (r+1) -1 , n-2r+1) = Choose(n-r+1, n-2r+1)
Formula (1) is deriving from number of ways of choosing n-2r+1
elements from r+1 distinct possibilities with replacements
Since we solved it for a specific value of r, and you are interested in all r>=1, you need to sum for each 1<=r<=n
So, the solution of the problem is given by the close formula:
(2) = Sum{ Choose(n-r+1, n-2r+1) | for each 1<=r<=n }
Disclaimer:
(A close variant of the problem with fixed r was given as HW in the course I am TAing this semester, main difference is the need to sum the various values of r.
This question already has answers here:
What is the fastest (known) algorithm to find the n-th Catalan number mod m?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
in how many ways you can sum the numbers less or equal with N to be equal with n. What is the algorithm to solve that?
Example:
lets say that we have
n =10;
so there are a lot of combinations but for example we can do:
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 = 10
1+2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
1+1+2+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
.....
1+9=10
10=10
8+2=10
and so on.
If you think is the Catalan questions, the answer is: the problem seems to be Catalan problem but is not. If you take a look to the results you will see that lets say for N=5 In Catalan algorithm you have 14 possibilities. But in right answer you have 2^4=16 possibilities if you count all, or the Fibonacci array if you keep only the unique combinations. Eg N=5 we have 8 possibilities, so the Catalan algorithm doesn't verify.
This was a question received by me in a quiz done for fun, at that time i thought that the solution is a well known formula, so i lost a lot of time trying to remember it :)
I found 2 solutions for this problem and 1 more if you are considering only the unique combinations. Eg 2+8 is the same as 8+2, you are considering only 1 of them.
So what is the algorithm to solve it?
This is an interesting problem. I do not have the solution (yet), but I think this can be done in a divide-and-conquer way. If you think of the problem space as a binary tree, you can generate it like this:
The root is the whole number n
Its children are floor(n/2) and ceil(n/2)
Example:
n=5
5
/ \
2 3
/ \ / \
1 1 1 2
/ \
1 1
If you do this recursively, you get a binary tree. If can then traverse the tree in this manner to get all the possible combinations of summing up to n:
get_combinations(root_node)
{
combinations=[]
combine(combinations, root_node.child_left, root_node.child_right)
}
combine(combinations, nodeA, nodeB)
{
new_combi = "nodeA" + "+nodeB"
combinations.add(new_combi)
if nodeA.has_children(): combinations.add( combine(combinations, nodeA.child_left, nodeA.child_right) + "+nodeB" )
if nodeB.has_children(): combinations.add( "nodeA+" + combine(combinations, nodeB.child_left, nodeB.child_right) )
return new_combi
}
This is just a draft. Of yourse you don't have to explicitly generate the tree beforehand, but you can do that along the way. Maybe I can come up with a nicer algorithm if I find the time.
EDIT:
OK, I didn't quite answer OPs question to the point, but I don't like to leave stuff unfinished, so here I present my solution as a working python program:
import math
def print_combinations(n):
for calc in combine(n):
line = ""
count = 0
for op in calc:
line += str(int(op))
count += 1
if count < len(calc):
line += "+"
print line
def combine(n):
p_comb = []
if n >= 1: p_comb.append([n])
if n >1:
comb_left = combine(math.floor(n/float(2)))
comb_right = combine(math.ceil(n/float(2)))
for l in comb_left:
for r in comb_right:
lr_merge = []
lr_merge.extend(l)
lr_merge.extend(r)
p_comb.append(lr_merge)
return p_comb
You can now generate all possible ways of summing up n with numbers <= n. For example if you want to do that for n=5 you call this: print_combinations(5)
Have fun, be aware though that you run into memory issues pretty fast (dynamic programming to the rescue!) and that you can have equivalent calculations (e.g. 1+2 and 2+1).
All the 3 solutions that I fount use Math induction:
solution 1:
if n =0 comb =1
if n =1 comb = 1
if n=2 there are 1+1, 2 comb =2 = comb(0)+comb(1)
if n=3 there are 1+1+1, 1+2, 2+1, 3 comb = 4 = comb(0)+comb(1)+comb(2)
if n=4 there are 1+1+1+1, 1+2+1,1+1+2,2+1+1,2+2,1+3,3+1,4 comb = 8 =comb(0)+comb(1)+comb(2)+comb(3)
Now we see a pattern here that says that:
at k value we have comb(k)= sum(comb(i)) where i between 0 and k-1
using math induction we can prove it for k+1 that:
comb(k+1)= sum(comb(i)) where is is between 0 and k
Solution number 2:
If we pay a little more attention to the solution 1 we can say that:
comb(0)=2^0
comb(1)=2^0
comb(2)=2^1
comb(3)=2^2
comb(4)=2^3
comb(k)=2^(k-1)
again using the math induction we can prove that
comb(k+1)=2^k
Solution number 3 (if we keep only the unique combinations) we can see that:
comb(0)=1
comb(1)=1
comb(2)= 1+1,2=2
comb(3)= 1+1+1, 1+2, 2+1, 3 we take out 1+2 because we have 2+1 and its the same comb(3)=3
comb(4) = 1+1+1+1, 1+2+1,1+1+2,2+1+1,2+2,1+3,3+1,4, here we take out the 1+2+1,,2+1+1 and 1+3 because we have them but in different order comb(4)= 5.
If we continue we can see that:
comb(5) = 8
comb(6)=13
we now can see the pattern that:
comb (k) = comb (k-1) + comb(k-2) the Fibonacci array
again using Math induction we can prove that for k+1
comb(k+1) = comb(k)+comb(k-1)
now it's easy to implement those solutions in a language using recursion for 2 of the solutions or just the non recursive method for the solution with 2^k.
And by the way this has serious connections with graph theory (how many sub-graphs you can build starting from a bigger graph - our number N, and sub-graphs being the ways to count )
Amazing isn't it?
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
how to get uniformed random between a, b by a known uniformed random function RANDOM(0,1)
In the book of Introduction to algorithms, there is an excise:
Describe an implementation of the procedure Random(a, b) that only makes calls to Random(0,1). What is the expected running time of your procedure, as a function of a and b? The probability of the result of Random(a,b) should be pure uniformly distributed, as Random(0,1)
For the Random function, the results are integers between a and b, inclusively. For e.g., Random(0,1) generates either 0 or 1; Random(a, b) generates a, a+1, a+2, ..., b
My solution is like this:
for i = 1 to b-a
r = a + Random(0,1)
return r
the running time is T=b-a
Is this correct? Are the results of my solutions uniformly distributed?
Thanks
What if my new solution is like this:
r = a
for i = 1 to b - a //including b-a
r += Random(0,1)
return r
If it is not correct, why r += Random(0,1) makes r not uniformly distributed?
Others have explained why your solution doesn't work. Here's the correct solution:
1) Find the smallest number, p, such that 2^p > b-a.
2) Perform the following algorithm:
r=0
for i = 1 to p
r = 2*r + Random(0,1)
3) If r is greater than b-a, go to step 2.
4) Your result is r+a
So let's try Random(1,3).
So b-a is 2.
2^1 = 2, so p will have to be 2 so that 2^p is greater than 2.
So we'll loop two times. Let's try all possible outputs:
00 -> r=0, 0 is not > 2, so we output 0+1 or 1.
01 -> r=1, 1 is not > 2, so we output 1+1 or 2.
10 -> r=2, 2 is not > 2, so we output 2+1 or 3.
11 -> r=3, 3 is > 2, so we repeat.
So 1/4 of the time, we output 1. 1/4 of the time we output 2. 1/4 of the time we output 3. And 1/4 of the time we have to repeat the algorithm a second time. Looks good.
Note that if you have to do this a lot, two optimizations are handy:
1) If you use the same range a lot, have a class that computes p once so you don't have to compute it each time.
2) Many CPUs have fast ways to perform step 1 that aren't exposed in high-level languages. For example, x86 CPUs have the BSR instruction.
No, it's not correct, that method will concentrate around (a+b)/2. It's a binomial distribution.
Are you sure that Random(0,1) produces integers? it would make more sense if it produced floating point values between 0 and 1. Then the solution would be an affine transformation, running time independent of a and b.
An idea I just had, in case it's about integer values: use bisection. At each step, you have a range low-high. If Random(0,1) returns 0, the next range is low-(low+high)/2, else (low+high)/2-high.
Details and complexity left to you, since it's homework.
That should create (approximately) a uniform distribution.
Edit: approximately is the important word there. Uniform if b-a+1 is a power of 2, not too far off if it's close, but not good enough generally. Ah, well it was a spontaneous idea, can't get them all right.
No, your solution isn't correct. This sum'll have binomial distribution.
However, you can generate a pure random sequence of 0, 1 and treat it as a binary number.
repeat
result = a
steps = ceiling(log(b - a))
for i = 0 to steps
result += (2 ^ i) * Random(0, 1)
until result <= b
KennyTM: my bad.
I read the other answers. For fun, here is another way to find the random number:
Allocate an array with b-a elements.
Set all the values to 1.
Iterate through the array. For each nonzero element, flip the coin, as it were. If it is came up 0, set the element to 0.
Whenever, after a complete iteration, you only have 1 element remaining, you have your random number: a+i where i is the index of the nonzero element (assuming we start indexing on 0). All numbers are then equally likely. (You would have to deal with the case where it's a tie, but I leave that as an exercise for you.)
This would have O(infinity) ... :)
On average, though, half the numbers would be eliminated, so it would have an average case running time of log_2 (b-a).
First of all I assume you are actually accumulating the result, not adding 0 or 1 to a on each step.
Using some probabilites you can prove that your solution is not uniformly distibuted. The chance that the resulting value r is (a+b)/2 is greatest. For instance if a is 0 and b is 7, the chance that you get a value 4 is (combination 4 of 7) divided by 2 raised to the power 7. The reason for that is that no matter which 4 out of the 7 values are 1 the result will still be 4.
The running time you estimate is correct.
Your solution's pseudocode should look like:
r=a
for i = 0 to b-a
r+=Random(0,1)
return r
As for uniform distribution, assuming that the random implementation this random number generator is based on is perfectly uniform the odds of getting 0 or 1 are 50%. Therefore getting the number you want is the result of that choice made over and over again.
So for a=1, b=5, there are 5 choices made.
The odds of getting 1 involves 5 decisions, all 0, the odds of that are 0.5^5 = 3.125%
The odds of getting 5 involves 5 decisions, all 1, the odds of that are 0.5^5 = 3.125%
As you can see from this, the distribution is not uniform -- the odds of any number should be 20%.
In the algorithm you created, it is really not equally distributed.
The result "r" will always be either "a" or "a+1". It will never go beyond that.
It should look something like this:
r=0;
for i=0 to b-a
r = a + r + Random(0,1)
return r;
By including "r" into your computation, you are including the "randomness" of all the previous "for" loop runs.