In an array with integers between 1 and 1,000,000 or say some very larger value ,if a single value is occurring twice twice. How do you determine which one?
I think we can use a bitmap to mark the elements , and then traverse allover again to find out the repeated element . But , i think it is a process with high complexity.Is there any better way ?
This sounds like homework or an interview question ... so rather than giving away the answer, here's a hint.
What calculations can you do on a range of integers whose answer you can determine ahead of time?
Once you realize the answer to this, you should be able to figure it out .... if you still can't figure it out ... (and it's not homework) I'll post the solution :)
EDIT: Ok. So here's the elegant solution ... if the list contains ALL of the integers within the range.
We know that all of the values between 1 and N must exist in the list. Using Guass' formula we can quickly compute the expected value of a range of integers:
Sum(1..N) = 1/2 * (1 + N) * Count(1..N).
Since we know the expected sum, all we have to do is loop through all the values and sum their values. The different between this sum and the expected sum is the duplicate value.
EDIT: As other's have commented, the question doesn't state that the range contains all of the integers ... in this case, you have to decide whether you want to optimize for memory or time.
If you want to perform the operation using O(1) storage, you can perform an in-place sort of the list. As you're sorting you have to check adjacent elements. Once you see a duplicate, you know you can stop. Optimal sorting is an O(n log n) operation on average - which establishes an upper bound for find the duplicate in this manner.
If you want to optimize for speed, you can use an additional O(n) storage. Using a HashSet (or similar structure), insert values from your list until you determine you are inserting a duplicate into the HashSet. Inserting n items into a HashSet is an O(n) operation on average, which establishes that as an upper bound for this method.
you may try to use bits as hashmap:
1 at position k means that number k occured before
0 at position k means that number k did not occured before
pseudocode:
0. assume that your array is A
1. initialize bitarray(there is nice class in c# for this) of 1000000 length filled with zeros
2. for each num in A:
if bitarray[num]
return num
else
bitarray[num] = 1
end
The time complexity of the bitmap solution is O(n) and it doesn't seem like you could do better than that. However it will take up a lot of memory for a generic list of numbers. Sorting the numbers is an obvious way to detect duplicates and doesn't require extra space if you don't mind the current order changing.
Assuming the array is of length n < N (i.e. not ALL integers are present -- in this case LBushkin's trick is the answer to this homework problem), there is no way to solve this problem using less than O(n) memory using an algorithm that just takes a single pass through the array. This is by reduction to the set disjointness problem.
Suppose I made the problem easier, and I promised you that the duplicate elements were in the array such that the first one was in the first n/2 elements, and the second one was in the last n/2 elements. Now we can think of playing a game in which two people each hold a string of n/2 elements, and want to know how many messages they have to send to be sure that none of their elements are the same. Since the first player could simulate the run of any algorithm that takes a pass through the array, and send the contents of its memory to the second player, a lower bound on the number of messages they need to send implies a lower bound on the memory requirements of any algorithm.
But its easy to see in this simple game that they need to send n/2 messages to be sure that they don't hold any of the same elements, which yields the lower bound.
Edit: This generalizes to show that for algorithms that make k passes through the array and use memory m, that m*k = Omega(n). And it is easy to see that you can in fact trade off memory for time in this way.
Of course, if you are willing to use algorithms that don't simply take passes through the array, you can do better as suggested already: sort the array, then take 1 pass through. This takes time O(nlogn) and space O(1). But note curiously that this proves that any sorting algorithm that just makes passes through the array must take time Omega(n^2)! Sorting algorithms that break the n^2 bound must make random accesses.
Related
I need to take a snapshot of an array each N times two elements gets swapped by a user-defined sorting algorithm. This N dipends by the total number of swaps M which the algorithm will perform once the array is ordered.
The size of the array can get up millions of elements, so I realized that running the algorithm two times (one for counting M, and one for taking these snapshots) gets too long on time when working with slow algorithm like BubbleSort.
Since I am the one who shuffle this algorithm I was wondering: is there a way to know how many swaps (or at least a superior limit of it) a precise sorting algorithm will do?
N is defined like:
Is it possible for you to modify the object class you are working with? You could try to pass a user-defined array class which owns a counter. Using operator overloading you could modify the assigment operator and increment the counter everytime
myarray[i]= newvalue
is called.
In a counting sort algorithm, we initialize an count array with a size of Maximum Value in a given array. Runtime of this method is O(n + Max value). However with an extra loop, we can look for minimum and maximum value of given array;
for 0 -> Length(given_array)
if given_array[i] > max
max = given_array[i]
if given_array[i] < min
min = given_array[i]
Then use that data to create the count array, lets say between 95-100. We could decrease the runtime in some cases tremendously. However, I haven't seen an approach like this. Would it be still a counting sort algorithm, or does it have another name that I don't know.
Counting sort is typically used when we know upfront that values will be restricted to a certain range.
This range doesn't need to start at zero; it's absolutely fine to use an array of length six whose elements represent the counts of values 95 through 100 (or, for that matter, the counts of values from −2 to 3). So, yes, your approach is still "counting sort".
But if you don't know this restriction upfront, you're not likely to get faster results by doing a complete pass over the data to check.
For example: suppose you have 1,000,000 elements, and you know they're all somewhere in the range 0–200, but you think they're probably all in a much narrower range. Well, the cost of prescanning the entire input array is going to be greater than the cost of working with a 201-element working array, which means it costs more than it can possibly save compared to just doing a counting sort with the range 0–200.
Runtime of this method is O(n + Max value).
The runtime is O(max(num_elements, range_size)), which — due to the magic of Landau (big-O) notation — is the same as O(num_elements + range_size). Your approach only affects the asymptotic complexity if max_value is asymptotically greater than both num_elements and range_size.
There are a stream of integers coming through. The problem is to find the first pair of numbers from the stream that adds to a specific value (say, k).
With static arrays, one can use either of the below approaches:
Approach (1): Sort the array, use two pointers to beginning and end of array and compare.
Approach (2): Use hashing, i.e. if A[i]+A[j]=k, then A[j]=k-A[i]. Search for A[j] in the hash table.
But neither of these approaches scale well for streams. Any thoughts on efficiently solving this?
I believe that there is no way to do this that doesn't use at least O(n) memory, where n is the number of elements that appear before the first pair that sums to k. I'm assuming that we are using a RAM machine, but not a machine that permits awful bitwise hackery (in other words, we can't do anything fancy with bit packing.)
The proof sketch is as follows. Suppose that we don't store all of the n elements that appear before the first pair that sums to k. Then when we see the nth element, which sums with some previous value to get k, there is a chance that we will have discarded the previous element that it pairs with and thus won't know that the sum of k has been reached. More formally, suppose that an adversary could watch what values we were storing in memory as we looked at the first n - 1 elements and noted that we didn't store some element x. Then the adversary could set the next element of the stream to be k - x and we would incorrectly report that the sum had not yet been reached, since we wouldn't remember seeing x.
Given that we need to store all the elements we've seen, without knowing more about the numbers in the stream, a very good approach would be to use a hash table that contains all of the elements we've seen so far. Given a good hash table, this would take expected O(n) memory and O(n) time to complete.
I am not sure whether there is a more clever strategy for solving this problem if you make stronger assumptions about the sorts of numbers in the stream, but I am fairly confident that this is asymptotically ideal in terms of time and space.
Hope this helps!
The setup: I have two arrays which are not sorted and are not of the same length. I want to see if one of the arrays is a subset of the other. Each array is a set in the sense that there are no duplicates.
Right now I am doing this sequentially in a brute force manner so it isn't very fast. I am currently doing this subset method sequentially. I have been having trouble finding any algorithms online that A) go faster and B) are in parallel. Say the maximum size of either array is N, then right now it is scaling something like N^2. I was thinking maybe if I sorted them and did something clever I could bring it down to something like Nlog(N), but not sure.
The main thing is I have no idea how to parallelize this operation at all. I could just do something like each processor looks at an equal amount of the first array and compares those entries to all of the second array, but I'd still be doing N^2 work. But I guess it'd be better since it would run in parallel.
Any Ideas on how to improve the work and make it parallel at the same time?
Thanks
Suppose you are trying to decide if A is a subset of B, and let len(A) = m and len(B) = n.
If m is a lot smaller than n, then it makes sense to me that you sort A, and then iterate through B doing a binary search for each element on A to see if there is a match or not. You can partition B into k parts and have a separate thread iterate through every part doing the binary search.
To count the matches you can do 2 things. Either you could have a num_matched variable be incremented every time you find a match (You would need to guard this var using a mutex though, which might hinder your program's concurrency) and then check if num_matched == m at the end of the program. Or you could have another array or bit vector of size m, and have a thread update the k'th bit if it found a match for the k'th element of A. Then at the end, you make sure this array is all 1's. (On 2nd thoughts bit vector might not work out without a mutex because threads might overwrite each other's annotations when they load the integer containing the bit relevant to them). The array approach, atleast, would not need any mutex that can hinder concurrency.
Sorting would cost you mLog(m) and then, if you only had a single thread doing the matching, that would cost you nLog(m). So if n is a lot bigger than m, this would effectively be nLog(m). Your worst case still remains NLog(N), but I think concurrency would really help you a lot here to make this fast.
Summary: Just sort the smaller array.
Alternatively if you are willing to consider converting A into a HashSet (or any equivalent Set data structure that uses some sort of hashing + probing/chaining to give O(1) lookups), then you can do a single membership check in just O(1) (in amortized time), so then you can do this in O(n) + the cost of converting A into a Set.
If I have N arrays, what is the best(Time complexity. Space is not important) way to find the common elements. You could just find 1 element and stop.
Edit: The elements are all Numbers.
Edit: These are unsorted. Please do not sort and scan.
This is not a homework problem. Somebody asked me this question a long time ago. He was using a hash to solve the problem and asked me if I had a better way.
Create a hash index, with elements as keys, counts as values. Loop through all values and update the count in the index. Afterwards, run through the index and check which elements have count = N. Looking up an element in the index should be O(1), combined with looping through all M elements should be O(M).
If you want to keep order specific to a certain input array, loop over that array and test the element counts in the index in that order.
Some special cases:
if you know that the elements are (positive) integers with a maximum number that is not too high, you could just use a normal array as "hash" index to keep counts, where the number are just the array index.
I've assumed that in each array each number occurs only once. Adapting it for more occurrences should be easy (set the i-th bit in the count for the i-th array, or only update if the current element count == i-1).
EDIT when I answered the question, the question did not have the part of "a better way" than hashing in it.
The most direct method is to intersect the first 2 arrays and then intersecting this intersection with the remaining N-2 arrays.
If 'intersection' is not defined in the language in which you're working or you require a more specific answer (ie you need the answer to 'how do you do the intersection') then modify your question as such.
Without sorting there isn't an optimized way to do this based on the information given. (ie sorting and positioning all elements relatively to each other then iterating over the length of the arrays checking for defined elements in all the arrays at once)
The question asks is there a better way than hashing. There is no better way (i.e. better time complexity) than doing a hash as time to hash each element is typically constant. Empirical performance is also favorable particularly if the range of values is can be mapped one to one to an array maintaining counts. The time is then proportional to the number of elements across all the arrays. Sorting will not give better complexity, since this will still need to visit each element at least once, and then there is the log N for sorting each array.
Back to hashing, from a performance standpoint, you will get the best empirical performance by not processing each array fully, but processing only a block of elements from each array before proceeding onto the next array. This will take advantage of the CPU cache. It also results in fewer elements being hashed in favorable cases when common elements appear in the same regions of the array (e.g. common elements at the start of all arrays.) Worst case behaviour is no worse than hashing each array in full - merely that all elements are hashed.
I dont think approach suggested by catchmeifyoutry will work.
Let us say you have two arrays
1: {1,1,2,3,4,5}
2: {1,3,6,7}
then answer should be 1 and 3. But if we use hashtable approach, 1 will have count 3 and we will never find 1, int his situation.
Also problems becomes more complex if we have input something like this:
1: {1,1,1,2,3,4}
2: {1,1,5,6}
Here i think we should give output as 1,1. Suggested approach fails in both cases.
Solution :
read first array and put into hashtable. If we find same key again, dont increment counter. Read second array in same manner. Now in the hashtable we have common elelements which has count as 2.
But again this approach will fail in second input set which i gave earlier.
I'd first start with the degenerate case, finding common elements between 2 arrays (more on this later). From there I'll have a collection of common values which I will use as an array itself and compare it against the next array. This check would be performed N-1 times or until the "carry" array of common elements drops to size 0.
One could speed this up, I'd imagine, by divide-and-conquer, splitting the N arrays into the end nodes of a tree. The next level up the tree is N/2 common element arrays, and so forth and so on until you have an array at the top that is either filled or not. In either case, you'd have your answer.
Without sorting and scanning the best operational speed you'll get for comparing 2 arrays for common elements is O(N2).