I have the following elements in a list/array
a1,a2,a3
and these elements are used to build another list in a predictable pattern
example
a1,a1,a2,a2,a3,a3,a1,a1,a2,a2,a3,a3...
The pattern may change but I will always know how many times each element repeats and all elements repeats the same number of times. And the elements always show up in the same order.
so another pattern might be
a1,a1,a1,a2,a2,a2,a3,a3,a3,a1,a1,a1,a2,a2,a2,a3,a3,a3...
or
a1,a2,a3,a1,a2,a3
it will never be
a2,a2,a1,a1,a3,a3... or a1,a2,a3,a2,a3,a1 etc
How I determine what element is at any index in the list?
I can't run through the generated list because it is what might be. It doesn't actually exist. And I need to get tbe answer for any index from 0 to infinity (actually integer.maxvalue)
Lets make some denotations:
n - number of elements in orginal array
k - how many times element is repeated
x- index
Array[x] == Array[(x mod (kn)) div k] - that is what You were searching for.
In other words element at index x is equal to element at index (x mod (kn)) div k
Run through the list until you find an element which is not the same as the first element.
After that you know how long each group is and you can determine the element at any index with a simple modulo statement.
Pseudo stuff:
determine(index){
firstelement = list[0]
i=0;
for i=0; element.count; i++
if element != firstelement
break;
m = index modulo (i*3)
switch(m)
case 0: return 'a1'
case 1: return 'a2'
case 2: return 'a3'
}
Related
I'm looking for a solution for this problem.
I have an array which defines the rule of the order of elements like below.
let rule = [A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K]
I then have another array whose element can be removed or added back.
So for example, I have a list like this:
var list = [A,D,E,I,J,K]
Now If I want to add element 'B' to 'list' the list should be
var list = [A,B,D,E,I,J,K]
because 'B' comes after 'A' and before 'D' in the rule array. So the insertion index would be 1 in this case.
The item in the array are not comparable each other (Let's say a developer can change the order of rule list at any time if that make sense). And there needs no duplicates in the array.
I'm not sure if I explained the problem clearly, but I'd like to know a good approach that finds an insertion index.
Explained the Python code in comments. Basically, find the right place to insert the new element using binary search. The order of elements is decided using rank. The below code assumes that if elements is non-empty then the rule is followed by items in the elements.
rule = ['A','B','C','D','E','F','G','H','I','J','K']
rank = dict()
for i in range(len(rule)):
rank[rule[i]] = i
elements = ['A','D','E','I','J','K'] #list in which we wish to add elements
target = 'B' #element to be inserted
#Binary search to find the right place to insert the target in elements
left, right = 0, len(elements)
while left < right:
mid = left + (right - left) // 2
if rank[elements[mid]] >= rank[target]:
right = mid
else:
left = mid + 1
elements.insert(left, target) #left is the insertion index
print(elements)
Time complexity of add: O(log(len(elements)))
Space complexity: O(1)
If the items are unique (only can occur once), and are not comparable to each other (don't know that B comes after A), then.
Iterate through the rules and find the items position in the rule array.
Check if it is the first item in rules, if so insert at the first position and skip the other steps.
Check to see if it is the last item in rules, if so insert at the end and skip the other steps.
Select the value of the item 1 before into a variable A.
Select the value of the item 1 after into a variable B.
Iterate through the list,
if you encounter the value in parameter A insert it after that value, if you encounter the value B, add the value before that.
If you come to the end without finding either value A or B, then you need to repeat but with values 2 before and 2 after the item in the rules (again checking to see if you hit the start or end of the rules list).
You will probably want to make 6 & 7 a function that calls itself recursively.
A simple approach is, we can use one iteration of Insertion sort.
So, we start from right side of array compare our input x with array elements a go from right to left side. if we arrive an index i of array that let[i]<=x then let[i+1] is correct location that x can be insert.
This approach that has time complexity O(n), follow from correctness of Insertion sort.
Note that the lower of your problem is O(n) because your data structure is array so you need after each insertion shift whole elements.
I came across the following question,
You are given an array A of n elements. These elements are now added to a new list L which is initially empty , in a certain order based on the given q queries.
In each query you are given an integer i that corresponds to A[i] in the array A. This means that you have to add the element A[i] to the list L.
After each element is added to the list L, make groups among the elements in the list L. Two elements will be in same group if their indexes in the array A are consecutive.
For each group we define the group’s value as axb where a is the largest value in that group and b is the size of that group.
Print the maximum group value among all the groups that are formed after each element is added to the list L.
My approach was to use a map<int,vector<int>> where key is the group number and value is a vector containing group size, max. of group. I also had an array g and g[i] indicated group number of a[i], -1 if it is not in any group. The code below is a part of my implementation, but I'm sure there are better ways to solve this question as this solution of mine gave TLE and WA in some cases,and I can't seem to figure out the correct approach. Pls suggest optimal way to solve this.
int g[a.size()+2]; //+2 because queries start with index 1, and g[i] corresponds to a[i-1]
for(int i=0;i<a.size()+2;i++)
g[i]=-1;
int gno=1;
map<int,vector<int> > m;
vector<int> ans;
int mx=0;
for(unsigned int i=0;i<queries.size();i++){
int q = queries[i];
if(g[q-1]==-1 && g[q+1]==-1){
//create new group with current eleent as first element
g[q] = gno; //gno is the group number.
vector<int> v;
v.push_back(1);
v.push_back(a[q-1]);
m[gno]=v;
mx = max(mx,m[gno][0]*m[gno][1]);
gno++;
}
else if(g[q-1]!=-1 && g[q+1]==-1){
//join current element to left group
g[q] = g[q-1];
m[g[q]][0]++;
m[g[q]][1] = max(m[g[q]][1],a[q-1]);
mx = max(mx,m[g[q]][0]*m[g[q]][1]);
}
else if(g[q-1]==-1 && g[q+1]!=-1){
//join current element to right group
g[q] = g[q+1];
m[g[q]][0]++;
m[g[q]][1] = max(m[g[q]][1],a[q-1]);
mx = max(mx,m[g[q]][0]*m[g[q]][1]);
}
else{
//join both groups to left and right
g[q]=g[q-1];
int g1 = g[q];
int i;
m[g[q]][0] += 1 + m[g[q+1]][0];
m[g[q]][1] = max(m[g[q]][1],max(a[q-1],m[g[q+1]][1]));
for(i=q+1;g[i]==g[i+1];i++){
g[i]=g1;
}
g[i]=g1;
mx = max(mx,m[g[q]][0]*m[g[q]][1]);
}
ans.push_back(mx);
}
.
I would not actually build list L. It may be too costly in time to find what to do with a new value: is it a new group on itself, does it extend an existing group, do two groups need to merge into one? If the first values are all far apart, you'll have many groups, and you need to iterate them with each new incoming value: this is not efficient.
I would just collect all the values first and only then see how they fit in groups.
There are two ways to collect the values:
Store them in a list, and when all values have been collected, sort the list in ascending order
Flag the entry in an array of booleans of size n. This way you do not have to sort it, but afterwards you do need to iterate the whole array to find the values in ascending order.
Method 1 will be the best when q is a lot less than n. Method 2 will be better for greater q.
With both methods you'll be able to iterate over the found values in ascending order, and while doing so you can identify the groups, their value, and also keep track of the largest group-value. Only one sweep is needed to find the answer.
Let's start with two simplifying assumptions:
no duplicates. Once a given index i has been "queried", it will never be queried again.
no negative numbers. All elements are positive or zero, so the largest value in a group is always positive or zero, so expanding a group (or merging two groups) will never cause the overall "maximum group value" to decrease.
(Further below I'll show how to not require those assumptions, but for now this will simplify the picture.)
So, whenever we "query" an index i, there are four cases:
i-1 is currently the right-endpoint of a group (by which I mean its greatest index) and i+1 is currently the left-endpoint of another group.
In this case, we need to merge the two groups into a single group, with i bridging the gap between them.
i-1 is currently the right-endpoint of a group, but i+1 is not currently in any group.
In this case we need to extend the group to cover i.
i-1 is not currently in any group, but i+1 is currently the left-endpoint of a group.
In this case, as in the previous case, we need to extend the group to cover i.
Neither i-1 nor i+1 is in a group.
In this case, we have a new group with just one element.
In all cases, the key thing to note is that we're only interested in the endpoints of groups. So we don't need a general mapping from indices to their groups . . . which is good, because when we merge two groups, it would be expensive to then go and update every single index from one group to point to the other.
So we just need three mappings:
std::unordered_map<int, int> map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint;
std::unordered_map<int, int> map_from_right_endpoint_to_left_endpoint;
std::unordered_map<int, int> map_from_left_endpoint_to_largest_value;
To distinguish the four cases, we use e.g. map_from_right_endpoint_to_left_endpoint.find(i - 1) (which returns an iterator pointing to the left-endpoint of the group that i-1 is the right-endpoint of, if applicable; otherwise it returns map_from_right_endpoint_to_left_endpoint.end()). We then delete entries as they become no-longer-applicable (due to groups being extended or merged in a given direction), in addition to (obviously) inserting new entries, and updating the values of existing entries.
In addition to those values, we also need an
int maximum_group_value = 0;
and whenever we extend a group or merge two groups, we check whether the value of the resulting group (meaning its largest_value * (right_endpoint - left_endpoint + 1) is greater than maximum_group_value. If so, we update maximum_group_value and return it; if not, we return maximum_group_value as-is.
Now, what if duplicates are allowed, such that a given index i might be "queried" after it already belongs to a group?
The simplest approach is to simply keep track of which i-s have already been queried; but a more elegant approach, if desired, might be to change map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint from a std::unordered_map to a std::map, and then use something like this:
bool is_already_in_a_group(
std::map<int, int> const & map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint,
int const i) {
// get iterator to first element *after* index (or to 'end()' if no such):
auto iter = map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint.upper_bound(index);
// if that pointer points to 'begin()', then there are no elements
// at or before index:
if (iter == map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint.begin()) {
return false;
}
// otherwise, move iterator to point to the last element whose key is
// less than or equal to index:
--iter;
// . . . and check whether the value of that element is greater than
// or equal to index (meaning that [key, value] spans index):
return iter->second >= index;
}
to check if the greatest key in map_from_left_endpoint_to_right_endpoint that is less than or equal to i is mapped to a value that is greater than or equal to i.
This adds a fifth case to our case analysis above — "if i is already inside a group, just do nothing and return maximum_group_value" — but other than that, has no effect.
Note that this same approach also lets us eliminate map_from_right_endpoint_to_left_endpoint, if we want: the above function could easily be tweaked to int get_left_endpoint_for_right_endpoint by changing its return statement to return iter->second == index ? iter->first : -1;.
At this point it becomes sensible to define a Group class with three fields (left_endpoint, right_endpoint, and largest_value), and just keep a single map_from_left_endpoint_to_group.
Lastly — what if negative values are allowed, such that the "maximum group value" can actually decrease as the result of a query? (For example, if the array elements are [-1, -10] and the queries are i=0, i=1, then the results are maximum_group_value=-1, maximum_group_value=-2.) In such a case, we need to keep track of the values of all current groups, because any one of them might suddenly become the maximum.
For that, instead of storing a single int maximum_group_value, we can maintain a heap of groups, ordered by value, that we push into every time we create/extend/merge groups. (We can just use a std::vector<Group> for this, plus std::push_heap with an appropriate comparator, or with an appropriate definition for operator<(Group const &, Group const &).) After each query, we check if the top group on the heap (the first element in the vector) is still a group that actually exists; if so, we return its value, otherwise we pop it (using std::pop_heap) and repeat.
As an optimization, we can also store int maximum_group_value, and eliminate the heap once we've encountered a nonnegative array-element (since as soon as a given group contains a nonnegative array-element, its value can never decrease again, and obviously the maximum group value will be the value of one of those groups).
Given an array of odd size. You have to delete any one element from the array and then find whether it is possible to divide the remaining even size array into two sets of equal size and having same sum of their elements. It is mandatory to remove any one element from the array.
So Here I am assuming that it is necessary to remove 1 element from the array.
Please look at the code snippet below.
int solve(int idx, int s, int cntr, int val) {
if(idx == n)
if(cntr != 1)
return INT_MAX;
else
return abs((sum-val)-2*s);
int ans = INT_MAX;
if(cntr == 0)
ans = min(ans, solve(idx+1, s, cntr+1, arr[idx]));
else
ans = min(ans, min(solve(idx+1,s+arr[idx], cntr, val), solve(idx+1, s, cntr, val)));
return ans;
}
Here sum is the total sum of original array,
val is the
value of the element at any position which u want to delete, and cntr to keep track whether any value is removed from the array or not.
So the algo goes like this.
Forget that you need to delete any value, Then the problem becomes whether is it possible to divide the array into 2 equi-sum halves. Now we can think of this problem such as divide the array into 2 parts such that abs(sum-2*sum_of_any_half_part) is minimized. So With this idea Lets say I initially have a bucket s which can be the part of array which we are concerned about. So at each step we can either put any element into this part or leave it for the other part.
Now if we introduce the deletion part in to this problem, its just one small changes which is required. Now at each step instead of 2 you have 3 options.
To delete this particular element and then increase the cntr to 1 and the val to the value of the element at that index in the array.
don't do any thing with this element. This is equal to putting this element into other bucket/half
put this element into bucket s, i.e. increase value of s by arr[idx];
Now recursively check which gives the best result.
P.S. Look at the base case in the code snippet to have better idea.
In the end if the above solve function gives ans = 0 then that means yes we can divide the array into 2 equi-sum parts after deleting any element.
Hope this helps.
The problem I've seen is as bellow, anyone has some idea on it?
http://judgecode.com/problems/1011
Given a permutation of integers from 0 to n - 1, sorting them is easy. But what if you can only swap a pair of integers every time?
Please calculate the minimal number of swaps
One classic algorithm seems to be permutation cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_notation#Cycle_notation). The number of swaps needed equals the total number of elements subtracted by the number of cycles.
For example:
1 2 3 4 5
2 5 4 3 1
Start with 1 and follow the cycle:
1 down to 2, 2 down to 5, 5 down to 1.
1 -> 2 -> 5 -> 1
3 -> 4 -> 3
We would need to swap index 1 with 5, then index 5 with 2; as well as index 3 with index 4. Altogether 3 swaps or n - 2. We subtract n by the number of cycles since cycle elements together total n and each cycle represents a swap less than the number of elements in it.
Here is a simple implementation in C for the above problem. The algorithm is similar to User גלעד ברקן:
Store the position of every element of a[] in b[]. So, b[a[i]] = i
Iterate over the initial array a[] from left to right.
At position i, check if a[i] is equal to i. If yes, then keep iterating.
If no, then it's time to swap. Look at the logic in the code minutely to see how the swapping takes place. This is the most important step as both array a[] and b[] needs to be modified. Increase the count of swaps.
Here is the implementation:
long long sortWithSwap(int n, int *a) {
int *b = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*n); //create a temporary array keeping track of the position of every element
int i,tmp,t,valai,posi;
for(i=0;i<n;i++){
b[a[i]] = i;
}
long long ans = 0;
for(i=0;i<n;i++){
if(a[i]!=i){
valai = a[i];
posi = b[i];
a[b[i]] = a[i];
a[i] = i;
b[i] = i;
b[valai] = posi;
ans++;
}
}
return ans;
}
The essence of solving this problem lies in the following observation
1. The elements in the array do not repeat
2. The range of elements is from 0 to n-1, where n is the size of the array.
The way to approach
After you have understood the way to approach the problem ou can solve it in linear time.
Imagine How would the array look like after sorting all the entries ?
It will look like arr[i] == i, for all entries . Is that convincing ?
First create a bool array named FIX, where FIX[i] == true if ith location is fixed, initialize this array with false initially
Start checking the original array for the match arr[i] == i, till the time this condition holds true, eveything is okay. While going ahead with traversal of array also update the FIX[i] = true. The moment you find that arr[i] != i you need to do something, arr[i] must have some value x such that x > i, how do we guarantee that ? The guarantee comes from the fact that the elements in the array do not repeat, therefore if the array is sorted till index i then it means that the element at position i in the array cannot come from left but from right.
Now the value x is essentially saying about some index , why so because the array only has elements till n-1 starting from 0, and in the sorted arry every element i of the array must be at location i.
what does arr[i] == x means is that , not only element i is not at it's correct position but also the element x is missing from it's place.
Now to fix ith location you need to look at xth location, because maybe xth location holds i and then you will swap the elements at indices i and x, and get the job done. But wait, it's not necessary that the index x will hold i (and you finish fixing these locations in just 1 swap). Rather it may be possible that index x holds value y, which again will be greater than i, because array is only sorted till location i.
Now before you can fix position i , you need to fix x, why ? we will see later.
So now again you try to fix position x, and then similarly you will try fixing till the time you don't see element i at some location in the fashion told .
The fashion is to follow the link from arr[i], untill you hit element i at some index.
It is guaranteed that you will definitely hit i at some location while following in this way . Why ? try proving it, make some examples, and you will feel it
Now you will start fixing all the index you saw in the path following from index i till this index (say it j). Now what you see is that the path which you have followed is a circular one and for every index i, the arr[i] is tored at it's previous index (index from where you reached here), and Once you see that you can fix the indices, and mark all of them in FIX array to be true. Now go ahead with next index of array and do the same thing untill whole array is fixed..
This was the complete idea, but to only conunt no. of swaps, you se that once you have found a cycle of n elements you need n swaps, and after doing that you fix the array , and again continue. So that's how you will count the no. of swaps.
Please let me know if you have some doubts in the approach .
You may also ask for C/C++ code help. Happy to help :-)
I have a complex algorithm which calculates the result of a function f(x). In the real world f(x) is a continuous function. However due to rounding errors in the algorithm this is not the case in the computer program. The following diagram gives an example:
Furthermore I have a list of several thousands values Fi.
I am looking for all the x values which meet an Fi value i.e. f(xi)=Fi
I can solve this problem with by simply iterating through the x values like in the following pseudo code:
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
//loop through the value list to see if the function result matches a value in the list
for j=0 to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[j])<Epsilon then
begin
//mark that element j of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
end
end
Of course it is necessary to use a high number of checks. Otherwise I will miss some x values. The higher the number of checks the more complete and accurate is the result. It is acceptable that the list is 90% or 95% complete.
The problem is that this brute force approach takes too much time. As I mentioned before the algorithm for f(x) is quite complex and with a high number of checks it takes too much time.
What would be a better solution for this problem?
Another way to do this is in two parts: generate all of the results, sort them, and then merge with the sorted list of existing results.
First step is to compute all of the results and save them along with the x value that generated them. That is:
results = list of <x, result>
for i = 0 to numberOfChecks
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
results.Add(x, FunctionResult)
end for
Now, sort the results list by FunctionResult, and also sort the FunctionResult-ListValues array by result.
You now have two sorted lists that you can move through linearly:
i = 0, j = 0;
while (i < results.length && j < ListValues.length)
{
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i];
if (Abs(diff) < Episilon)
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
else if (diff > 0)
{
// list value is much larger than result. Move to next result.
i = i + 1
}
else
{
// list value is much smaller than result. Move to next list value.
j = j + 1
}
}
Sort the list, producing an array SortedListValues that contains
the sorted ListValues and an array SortedListValueIndices that
contains the index in the original array of each entry in
SortedListValues. You only actually need the second of these and
you can create both of them with a single sort by sorting an array
of tuples of (value, index) using value as the sort key.
Iterate over your range in 0..NumberOfChecks-1 and compute the
value of the function at each step, and then use a binary chop
method to search for it in the sorted list.
Pseudo-code:
// sort as described above
SortedListValueIndices = sortIndices(ListValues);
for i=0 to NumberOfChecks-1 do
begin
//calculate the function result with the algorithm
x=i*(xmax-xmin)/NumberOfChecks;
FunctionResult=CalculateFunctionResultWithAlgorithm(x);
// do a binary chop to find the closest element in the list
highIndex = NumberOfValuesInTheList-1;
lowIndex = 0;
while true do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[lowIndex]])<Epsilon then
begin
// find all elements in the range that match, breaking out
// of the loop as soon as one doesn't
for j=lowIndex to NumberOfValuesInTheList-1 do
begin
if Abs(FunctionResult-ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[j]])>=Epsilon then
break
//mark that element SortedListValueIndices[j] of the list matches
//and store the corresponding x value in the list
end
// break out of the binary chop loop
break
end
// break out of the loop once the indices match
if highIndex <= lowIndex then
break
// do the binary chop searching, adjusting the indices:
middleIndex = (lowIndex + 1 + highIndex) / 2;
if ListValues[SortedListValueIndices[middleIndex] < FunctionResult then
lowIndex = middleIndex;
else
begin
highIndex = middleIndex;
lowIndex = lowIndex + 1;
end
end
end
Possible complications:
The binary chop isn't taking the epsilon into account. Depending on
your data this may or may not be an issue. If it is acceptable that
the list is only 90 or 95% complete this might be ok. If not then
you'll need to widen the range to take it into account.
I've assumed you want to be able to match multiple x values for each FunctionResult. If that's not necessary you can simplify the code.
Naturally this depends very much on the data, and especially on the numeric distribution of Fi. Another problem is that the f(x) looks very jumpy, eliminating the concept of "assumption of nearby value".
But one could optimise the search.
Picture below.
Walking through F(x) at sufficient granularity, define a rough min
(red line) and max (green line), using suitable tolerance (the "air"
or "gap" in between). The area between min and max is "AREA".
See where each Fi-value hits AREA, do a stacked marking ("MARKING") at X-axis accordingly (can be multiple segments of X).
Where lots of MARKINGs at top of each other (higher sum - the vertical black "sum" arrows), do dense hit tests, hence increasing the overall
chance to get as many hits as possible. Elsewhere do more sparse tests.
Tighten this schema (decrease tolerance) as much as you dare.
EDIT: Fi is a bit confusing. Is it an ordered array or does it have random order (as i assumed)?
Jim Mischel's solution would work in a O(i+j) instead of the O(i*j) solution that you currently have. But, there is a (very) minor bug in his code. The correct code would be :
diff = ListValues[j] - results[i]; //no abs() here
if (abs(diff) < Episilon) //add abs() here
{
// mark this one with the x value
// and move to the next result
i = i + 1
}
the best methods will relay on the nature of your function f(x).
The best solution is if you can create the reversing to F(x) and use it
as you said F(x) is continuous:
therefore you can start evaluating small amount of far points, then find ranges that makes sense, and refine your "assumption" for x that f(x)=Fi
it is not bullet proof, but it is an option.
e.g. Fi=5.7; f(1)=1.4 ,f(4)=4,f(16)=12.6, f(10)=10.1, f(7)=6.5, f(5)=5.1, f(6)=5.8, you can take 5 < x < 7
on the same line as #1, and IF F(x) is hard to calculate, you can use Interpolation, and then evaluate F(x) only at the values that are probable.