Original Problem:
I have 3 boxes each containing 200 coins, given that there is only one person who has made calls from all of the three boxes and thus there is one coin in each box which has same fingerprints and rest of all coins have different fingerprints. You have to find the coin which contains same fingerprint from all of the 3 boxes. So that we can find the fingerprint of the person who has made call from all of the 3 boxes.
Converted problem:
You have 3 arrays containing 200 integers each. Given that there is one and only one common element in these 3 arrays. Find the common element.
Please consider solving this for other than trivial O(1) space and O(n^3) time.
Some improvement in Pelkonen's answer:
From converted problem in OP:
"Given that there is one and only one common element in these 3 arrays."
We need to sort only 2 arrays and find common element.
If you sort all the arrays first O(n log n) then it will be pretty easy to find the common element in less than O(n^3) time. You can for example use binary search after sorting them.
Let N = 200, k = 3,
Create a hash table H with capacity ≥ Nk.
For each element X in array 1, set H[X] to 1.
For each element Y in array 2, if Y is in H and H[Y] == 1, set H[Y] = 2.
For each element Z in array 3, if Z is in H and H[Z] == 2, return Z.
throw new InvalidDataGivenByInterviewerException();
O(Nk) time, O(Nk) space complexity.
Use a hash table for each integer and encode the entries such that you know which array it's coming from - then check for the slot which has entries from all 3 arrays. O(n)
Use a hashtable mapping objects to frequency counts. Iterate through all three lists, incrementing occurrence counts in the hashtable, until you encounter one with an occurrence count of 3. This is O(n), since no sorting is required. Example in Python:
def find_duplicates(*lists):
num_lists = len(lists)
counts = {}
for l in lists:
for i in l:
counts[i] = counts.get(i, 0) + 1
if counts[i] == num_lists:
return i
Or an equivalent, using sets:
def find_duplicates(*lists):
intersection = set(lists[0])
for l in lists[1:]:
intersection = intersection.intersect(set(l))
return intersection.pop()
O(N) solution: use a hash table. H[i] = list of all integers in the three arrays that map to i.
For all H[i] > 1 check if three of its values are the same. If yes, you have your solution. You can do this check with the naive solution even, it should still be very fast, or you can sort those H[i] and then it becomes trivial.
If your numbers are relatively small, you can use H[i] = k if i appears k times in the three arrays, then the solution is the i for which H[i] = 3. If your numbers are huge, use a hash table though.
You can extend this to work even if you can have elements that can be common to only two arrays and also if you can have elements repeating elements in one of the arrays. It just becomes a bit more complicated, but you should be able to figure it out on your own.
If you want the fastest* answer:
Sort one array--time is N log N.
For each element in the second array, search the first. If you find it, add 1 to a companion array; otherwise add 0--time is N log N, using N space.
For each non-zero count, copy the corresponding entry into the temporary array, compacting it so it's still sorted--time is N.
For each element in the third array, search the temporary array; when you find a hit, stop. Time is less than N log N.
Here's code in Scala that illustrates this:
import java.util.Arrays
val a = Array(1,5,2,3,14,1,7)
val b = Array(3,9,14,4,2,2,4)
val c = Array(1,9,11,6,8,3,1)
Arrays.sort(a)
val count = new Array[Int](a.length)
for (i <- 0 until b.length) {
val j =Arrays.binarySearch(a,b(i))
if (j >= 0) count(j) += 1
}
var n = 0
for (i <- 0 until count.length) if (count(i)>0) { count(n) = a(i); n+= 1 }
for (i <- 0 until c.length) {
if (Arrays.binarySearch(count,0,n,c(i))>=0) println(c(i))
}
With slightly more complexity, you can either use no extra space at the cost of being even more destructive of your original arrays, or you can avoid touching your original arrays at all at the cost of another N space.
Edit: * as the comments have pointed out, hash tables are faster for non-perverse inputs. This is "fastest worst case". The worst case may not be so unlikely unless you use a really good hashing algorithm, which may well eat up more time than your sort. For example, if you multiply all your values by 2^16, the trivial hashing (i.e. just use the bitmasked integer as an index) will collide every time on lists shorter than 64k....
//Begineers Code using Binary Search that's pretty Easy
// bool BS(int arr[],int low,int high,int target)
// {
// if(low>high)
// return false;
// int mid=low+(high-low)/2;
// if(target==arr[mid])
// return 1;
// else if(target<arr[mid])
// BS(arr,low,mid-1,target);
// else
// BS(arr,mid+1,high,target);
// }
// vector <int> commonElements (int A[], int B[], int C[], int n1, int n2, int n3)
// {
// vector<int> ans;
// for(int i=0;i<n2;i++)
// {
// if(i>0)
// {
// if(B[i-1]==B[i])
// continue;
// }
// //The above if block is to remove duplicates
// //In the below code we are searching an element form array B in both the arrays A and B;
// if(BS(A,0,n1-1,B[i]) && BS(C,0,n3-1,B[i]))
// {
// ans.push_back(B[i]);
// }
// }
// return ans;
// }
Related
Suppose we have a finite domain D={d1,..dk} containg k elements.
We consider S a subset of D^n, i.e. a set of tuples of the form < a1,..,an >, with ai in D.
We want to represent it (compactly) using S' a subset of 2^D^n, i.e. a set of tuples of the form < A1,..An > with Ai being subsets of D. The implication is that for any tuple s' in S' all elements in the cross product of Ai exist in S.
For instance, consider D={a,b,c} so k=3, n=2 and the tuples S=< a,b >+< a,c >+< b,b >+< b,c >.
We can use S'=<{a,b},{b,c}> to represent S.
This singleton solution is also minimal, S'=<{a},{b,c}>+<{b},{b,c}> is also a solution but it is larger, therefore less desirable.
Some sizes, in concrete instances, that we need to handle : k ~ 1000 elements in the domain D, n <= 10 relatively small (main source of complexity), |S| ranging to large values > 10^6.
A naïve approach consists in first plunging S into the domain of S' 2^D^n, then using the following test, two by two, two tuples s1,s2 in S' can be fused to form a single tuple in S' iff. they differ by only one component.
e.g.
< a,b >+< a,c > -> <{a},{b,c}> (differ on second component)
< b,b >+< b,c > -> <{b},{b,c}> (differ on second component)
<{a},{b,c}> + <{b},{b,c}> -> <{a,b},{b,c}> (differ on first component)
Now there could be several minimal S', we are interested in finding any one, and approximations of minimisation of some kind are also ok, provided they don't give wrong results (i.e. even if S' is not as small as it could be, but we get very fast results).
Naive algorithm has to deal with the fact that any newly introduced "fused" tuple could match with some other tuple so it scales really badly on large input sets, even with n remaining low. You need |S'|^2 comparisons to ensure convergence, and any time you do fuse two elements, I'm currently retesting every pair (how can I improve that ?).
A lot of efficiency is iteration order dependent, so sorting the set in some way(s) could be an option, or perhaps indexing using hashes, but I'm not sure how to do it.
Imperative pseudo code would be ideal, or pointers to a reformulation of the problem to something I can run a solver on would really help.
Here's some psuedo (C# code that I haven't tested) that demonstrates your S'=<{a},{b,c}>+<{b},{b,c}> method. Except for the space requirements, which when using an integer index for the element are negligible; the overall efficiency and speed for Add'ing and Test'ing tuples should be extremely fast. If you want a practical solution then you already have one you just have to use the correct ADTs.
ElementType[] domain = new ElementType[]; // a simple array of domain elements
FillDomain(domain); // insert all domain elements
SortArray(domain); // sort the domain elements K log K time
SortedDictionary<int, HashSet<int>> subsets; // int's are index/ref into domain
subsets = new SortedDictionary<int, HashSet<int>>();
//
void AddTuple(SortedDictionary<int, HashSet<int>> tuples, ElementType[] domain, ElementType first, elementType second) {
int a = BinarySearch(domain, first); // log K time (binary search)
int b = BinarySearch(domain, second); // log K time (binary search)
if(tuples.ContainsKey(a)) { // log N time (binary search on sorted keys)
if(!tuples[a].Contains(b)) { // constant time (hash lookup)
tuples[a].Add(b); // constant time (hash add)
}
} else { // constant time (instance + hash add)
tuples[a] = new HashSet<in>();
tuples[a].Add(b);
}
}
//
bool ContainsTuple(SortedDictionary<int, HashSet<int>> tuples, ElementType[] domain, ElementType first, ElementType second) {
int a = BinarySearch(domain, first); // log K time (binary search)
int b = BinarySearch(domain, second); // log K time (binary search)
if(tuples.ContainsKey(a)) { // log N time (binary search on sorted keys)
if(tuples[a].Contains(b)) { // constant time (hash test)
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
The space savings for optimizing your tuple subset S' won't outweight the slowdown of the optimization process itself. For size optimization (if you know you're K will be less than 65536 you could use short integers instead of integers in the SortedDictionary and HashSet. But even 50 mil integers only take up 4 bytes per 32bit integer * 50 mil ~= 200 MB.
EDIT
Here's another approach by encoding/mapping your tuples to a string you can take advantage of binary string compare and the fact that UTF-16 / UTF-8 encoding is very size efficient. Again this still doesn't doing the merging optimization you want, but speed and efficiency would be pretty good.
Here's some quick pseudo code in JavaScript.
Array.prototype.binarySearch = function(elm) {
var l = 0, h = this.length - 1, i;
while(l <= h) {
i = (l + h) >> 1;
if(this[i] < elm) l = ++i;
else if(this[i] > elm) h = --i;
else return i;
}
return -(++l);
};
// map your ordered domain elements to characters
// For example JavaScript's UTF-16 should be fine
// UTF-8 would work as well
var domain = {
"a": String.fromCharCode(1),
"b": String.fromCharCode(2),
"c": String.fromCharCode(3),
"d": String.fromCharCode(4)
}
var tupleStrings = [];
// map your tuple to the string encoding
function map(tuple) {
var str = "";
for(var i=0; i<tuple.length; i++) {
str += domain[tuple[i]];
}
return str;
}
function add(tuple) {
var str = map(tuple);
// binary search
var index = tupleStrings.binarySearch(str);
if(index < 0) index = ~index;
// insert depends on tupleString's type implementation
tupleStrings.splice(index, 0, str);
}
function contains(tuple) {
var str = map(tuple);
// binary search
return tupleString.binarySearch(str) >= 0;
}
add(["a","b"]);
add(["a","c"]);
add(["b","b"]);
add(["b","c"]);
add(["c","c"]);
add(["d","a"]);
alert(contains(["a","a"]));
alert(contains(["d","a"]));
alert(JSON.stringify(tupleStrings, null, "\n"));
I have N numbers let say 20 30 15 30 30 40 15 20. Now I want to find how many numbers pairs are in a given range.(L and R given).
number pair= both numbers are same.
My approach:
Create a Map of Array, such that key of map= number, and value=ArrayList of indexes at which that number appears. Then I traverse from L to R and for each value in that range I traverse in the corresponding arraylist to find if there is a pair that fits in range, and then increment count.
But I think this approach is too slow. Is there some faster method to do the same?
Example: for above given sequence and L=0 and R=6
Answer=5. Possible pairs are 1 for 20, 1 for 15 and 3 for 30.
I am developing a solution, assuming numbers can be upto 10^8( and non negative).
If you are looking for speed and don't care about memory there's maybe a better way.
You can use a set as an auxiliary data structure to see if a number was found, and then simply walk the array. Pseudo code:
int numPairs = 0;
set setVisited;
for (int i = L; i < R; i++) {
if (setVisited.contains(a[i])) {
// found the second of a pair. count it up and reset.
numPairs++;
setVisited.remove(a[i]);
} else {
// remember that we saw this number, so we can spot the next pair.
setVisited.add(a[i]);
}
New solution... hopefully better this time. Psuedo C-ish code:
// Sort the sub-array a[L..R]. This can be done O(nlogn) using qsort.
// ... code omitted ...
// Walk through the sorted array counting how many times number occurs.
// When the number changes, count how many possibles ways to make pairs
// from the given count.
int totalPairs = 0;
int count = 1;
int current = a[L];
for (i = L+1; i < R; i++) {
if (a[i] == current) { // found another, keep counting
count++;
} else { // found a different one
if (count > 1) { // need at least 2 to make a pair!
totalPairs += factorial(count) / 2;
}
}
// start counting the new one
current = a[i];
count = 1;
}
// count the final one
if (count > 1) {
totalPairs += factorial(count) / 2;
}
The sort runs O(nlgn), and the loop body runs O(n). Interestingly the performance barrier is now factorial. For really long arrays with really high numbers of occurrences, factorial is expensive unless you optimize further.
One way would be to have loop count repetitions but not compute factorial yet -- leave yet another array of counts of numbers. Then sort this array (again Nlg(N)), then walk through this array and re-use previously computed factorial to compute the next one.
Also if this array gets big, you'll need a large integer to represent the total. I don't know the O() performance of large integers off the top of my head.
Cool problem!
You are given with three sorted arrays ( in ascending order), you are required to find a triplet ( one element from each array) such that distance is minimum.
Distance is defined like this :
If a[i], b[j] and c[k] are three elements then
distance = max{abs(a[i]-b[j]),abs(a[i]-c[k]),abs(b[j]-c[k])}
Please give a solution in O(n) time complexity
Linear time algorithm:
double MinimalDistance(double[] A, double[] B, double[] C)
{
int i,j,k = 0;
double min_value = infinity;
double current_val;
int opt_indexes[3] = {0, 0, 0);
while(i < A.size || j < B.size || k < C.size)
{
current_val = calculate_distance(A[i],B[j],C[k]);
if(current_val < min_value)
{
min_value = current_val;
opt_indexes[1] = i;
opt_indexes[2] = j;
opt_indexes[3] = k;
}
if(A[i] < B[j] && A[i] < C[k] && i < A.size)
i++;
else if (B[j] < C[k] && j < B.size)
j++;
else
k++;
}
return min_value;
}
In each step you check the current distance, then increment the index of the array currently pointing to the minimal value. each array is iterated through exactly once, which mean the running time is O(A.size + B.size + C.size).
if you want the optimal indexes instead of the minimal values, you can return opt_indexes instead of min_value.
Suppose we have just one sorted array, then 3 consecutive elements which have less possible distances are the desired solution. Now when we have three arrays, just merge them all and make a big sorted array ABC (this can be done in O(n) by merge operation in merge-sort), just keep a flag to determine which element belongs in which original array. Now you have to find three consecutive elements in array like this:
a1,a2,b1,b2,b3,c1,b4,c2,c3,c4,b5,b6,a3,a4,a5,....
and here consecutive means they belong to the 3 different group in consecutive order, e.g: a2,b3,c1 or c4,b6,a3.
Now finding this tree elements is not hard, sure smallest and greatest one should be last and first of a elements of first and last group in some triple, e.g in the group: [c2,c3,c4],[b5,b6],[a3,a4,a5], we don't need to check a4,a5,c2,c3 is clear that possible solution in this case is among c4,[b5,b6],a5, also we don't need to compare c4 with b5,b6, or a5 with b5,b6, sure distance is made by a5-c4 (in this group). So we can start from left and keep track of last element and update best possible solution in each iteration by just keeping the last visited value of each group.
Example (first I should say that I didn't wrote the code because I think this is OP's task not me):
Suppose we have this sequences after sorted array:
a1,a2,b1,b2,b3,c1,b4,c2,c3,c4,b5,b6,a3,a4,a5,....
let iterate step by step:
We need to just keep track of last item for each item from our arrays, a is for keeping track of current best a_i, b for b_i, and c for c_i. suppose at first a_i=b_i=c_i=-1,
in the first step a will be a1, in the next step
a=a2,b=-1,c=-1
a=a2,b=b1,c=-1
a=a2,b=b2,c=-1
a=a2,b=b3,c=-1,
a=a2,b=b3,c=c1,
At this point we save current pointers (a2,b3,c1) as a best value for difference,
In the next step:
a=a2,c=c1,b=b4
Now we compare the difference of b4-a2 with previously best option, if is better, we save this pointers as a solution upto now and we proceed:
a=a2,b=b4,c=c2 (again compare and if needed update the best solution),
a=a2,b=b4,c=c3 (again ....)
a=a2,b=b4,c=c4 (again ....)
a=a2, b=b5,c=c4, ....
Ok if is not clear from the text, after merge we have (I'll suppose all of array have at least one element):
solution = infinite;
a=b=c=-1,
bestA=bestB=bestC=1;
for (int i=0;i<ABC.Length;i++)
{
if(ABC[i].type == "a") // type is a flag determines
// who is the owner of this element
{
a=ABC[i].Value;
if (b!=-1&&c!=-1)
{
if (max(|a-b|,|b-c|,|a-c|) < solution)
{
solution = max(|a-b|,|b-c|,|a-c|);
bestA= a,bestB = b,bestC = c;
}
}
}
// and two more if for type "b" and "c"
}
Sure there is more elegant algorithm than this, but I see you had problem with your link, so I guess this trivial way of looking at problem makes it easier, afterward you can understand your own link.
Say I have y distinct values and I want to select x of them at random. What's an efficient algorithm for doing this? I could just call rand() x times, but the performance would be poor if x, y were large.
Note that combinations are needed here: each value should have the same probability to be selected but their order in the result is not important. Sure, any algorithm generating permutations would qualify, but I wonder if it's possible to do this more efficiently without the random order requirement.
How do you efficiently generate a list of K non-repeating integers between 0 and an upper bound N covers this case for permutations.
Robert Floyd invented a sampling algorithm for just such situations. It's generally superior to shuffling then grabbing the first x elements since it doesn't require O(y) storage. As originally written it assumes values from 1..N, but it's trivial to produce 0..N and/or use non-contiguous values by simply treating the values it produces as subscripts into a vector/array/whatever.
In pseuocode, the algorithm runs like this (stealing from Jon Bentley's Programming Pearls column "A sample of Brilliance").
initialize set S to empty
for J := N-M + 1 to N do
T := RandInt(1, J)
if T is not in S then
insert T in S
else
insert J in S
That last bit (inserting J if T is already in S) is the tricky part. The bottom line is that it assures the correct mathematical probability of inserting J so that it produces unbiased results.
It's O(x)1 and O(1) with regard to y, O(x) storage.
Note that, in accordance with the combinations tag in the question, the algorithm only guarantees equal probability of each element occuring in the result, not of their relative order in it.
1O(x2) in the worst case for the hash map involved which can be neglected since it's a virtually nonexistent pathological case where all the values have the same hash
Assuming that you want the order to be random too (or don't mind it being random), I would just use a truncated Fisher-Yates shuffle. Start the shuffle algorithm, but stop once you have selected the first x values, instead of "randomly selecting" all y of them.
Fisher-Yates works as follows:
select an element at random, and swap it with the element at the end of the array.
Recurse (or more likely iterate) on the remainder of the array, excluding the last element.
Steps after the first do not modify the last element of the array. Steps after the first two don't affect the last two elements. Steps after the first x don't affect the last x elements. So at that point you can stop - the top of the array contains uniformly randomly selected data. The bottom of the array contains somewhat randomized elements, but the permutation you get of them is not uniformly distributed.
Of course this means you've trashed the input array - if this means you'd need to take a copy of it before starting, and x is small compared with y, then copying the whole array is not very efficient. Do note though that if all you're going to use it for in future is further selections, then the fact that it's in somewhat-random order doesn't matter, you can just use it again. If you're doing the selection multiple times, therefore, you may be able to do only one copy at the start, and amortise the cost.
If you really only need to generate combinations - where the order of elements does not matter - you may use combinadics as they are implemented e.g. here by James McCaffrey.
Contrast this with k-permutations, where the order of elements does matter.
In the first case (1,2,3), (1,3,2), (2,1,3), (2,3,1), (3,1,2), (3,2,1) are considered the same - in the latter, they are considered distinct, though they contain the same elements.
In case you need combinations, you may really only need to generate one random number (albeit it can be a bit large) - that can be used directly to find the m th combination.
Since this random number represents the index of a particular combination, it follows that your random number should be between 0 and C(n,k).
Calculating combinadics might take some time as well.
It might just not worth the trouble - besides Jerry's and Federico's answer is certainly simpler than implementing combinadics.
However if you really only need a combination and you are bugged about generating the exact number of random bits that are needed and none more... ;-)
While it is not clear whether you want combinations or k-permutations, here is a C# code for the latter (yes, we could generate only a complement if x > y/2, but then we would have been left with a combination that must be shuffled to get a real k-permutation):
static class TakeHelper
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeRandom<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source, Random rng, int count)
{
T[] items = source.ToArray();
count = count < items.Length ? count : items.Length;
for (int i = items.Length - 1 ; count-- > 0; i--)
{
int p = rng.Next(i + 1);
yield return items[p];
items[p] = items[i];
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Random rnd = new Random(Environment.TickCount);
int[] numbers = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 };
foreach (int number in numbers.TakeRandom(rnd, 3))
{
Console.WriteLine(number);
}
}
}
Another, more elaborate implementation that generates k-permutations, that I had lying around and I believe is in a way an improvement over existing algorithms if you only need to iterate over the results. While it also needs to generate x random numbers, it only uses O(min(y/2, x)) memory in the process:
/// <summary>
/// Generates unique random numbers
/// <remarks>
/// Worst case memory usage is O(min((emax-imin)/2, num))
/// </remarks>
/// </summary>
/// <param name="random">Random source</param>
/// <param name="imin">Inclusive lower bound</param>
/// <param name="emax">Exclusive upper bound</param>
/// <param name="num">Number of integers to generate</param>
/// <returns>Sequence of unique random numbers</returns>
public static IEnumerable<int> UniqueRandoms(
Random random, int imin, int emax, int num)
{
int dictsize = num;
long half = (emax - (long)imin + 1) / 2;
if (half < dictsize)
dictsize = (int)half;
Dictionary<int, int> trans = new Dictionary<int, int>(dictsize);
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
int current = imin + i;
int r = random.Next(current, emax);
int right;
if (!trans.TryGetValue(r, out right))
{
right = r;
}
int left;
if (trans.TryGetValue(current, out left))
{
trans.Remove(current);
}
else
{
left = current;
}
if (r > current)
{
trans[r] = left;
}
yield return right;
}
}
The general idea is to do a Fisher-Yates shuffle and memorize the transpositions in the permutation.
It was not published anywhere nor has it received any peer-review whatsoever. I believe it is a curiosity rather than having some practical value. Nonetheless I am very open to criticism and would generally like to know if you find anything wrong with it - please consider this (and adding a comment before downvoting).
A little suggestion: if x >> y/2, it's probably better to select at random y - x elements, then choose the complementary set.
The trick is to use a variation of shuffle or in other words a partial shuffle.
function random_pick( a, n )
{
N = len(a);
n = min(n, N);
picked = array_fill(0, n, 0); backup = array_fill(0, n, 0);
// partially shuffle the array, and generate unbiased selection simultaneously
// this is a variation on fisher-yates-knuth shuffle
for (i=0; i<n; i++) // O(n) times
{
selected = rand( 0, --N ); // unbiased sampling N * N-1 * N-2 * .. * N-n+1
value = a[ selected ];
a[ selected ] = a[ N ];
a[ N ] = value;
backup[ i ] = selected;
picked[ i ] = value;
}
// restore partially shuffled input array from backup
// optional step, if needed it can be ignored
for (i=n-1; i>=0; i--) // O(n) times
{
selected = backup[ i ];
value = a[ N ];
a[ N ] = a[ selected ];
a[ selected ] = value;
N++;
}
return picked;
}
NOTE the algorithm is strictly O(n) in both time and space, produces unbiased selections (it is a partial unbiased shuffling) and non-destructive on the input array (as a partial shuffle would be) but this is optional
adapted from here
update
another approach using only a single call to PRNG (pseudo-random number generator) in [0,1] by IVAN STOJMENOVIC, "ON RANDOM AND ADAPTIVE PARALLEL GENERATION OF COMBINATORIAL OBJECTS" (section 3), of O(N) (worst-case) complexity
Here is a simple way to do it which is only inefficient if Y is much larger than X.
void randomly_select_subset(
int X, int Y,
const int * inputs, int X, int * outputs
) {
int i, r;
for( i = 0; i < X; ++i ) outputs[i] = inputs[i];
for( i = X; i < Y; ++i ) {
r = rand_inclusive( 0, i+1 );
if( r < i ) outputs[r] = inputs[i];
}
}
Basically, copy the first X of your distinct values to your output array, and then for each remaining value, randomly decide whether or not to include that value.
The random number is further used to choose an element of our (mutable) output array to replace.
If, for example, you have 2^64 distinct values, you can use a symmetric key algorithm (with a 64 bits block) to quickly reshuffle all combinations. (for example Blowfish).
for(i=0; i<x; i++)
e[i] = encrypt(key, i)
This is not random in the pure sense but can be useful for your purpose.
If you want to work with arbitrary # of distinct values following cryptographic techniques you can but it's more complex.
If I have a size N array of objects, and I have an array of unique numbers in the range 1...N, is there any algorithm to rearrange the object array in-place in the order specified by the list of numbers, and yet do this in O(N) time?
Context: I am doing a quick-sort-ish algorithm on objects that are fairly large in size, so it would be faster to do the swaps on indices than on the objects themselves, and only move the objects in one final pass. I'd just like to know if I could do this last pass without allocating memory for a separate array.
Edit: I am not asking how to do a sort in O(N) time, but rather how to do the post-sort rearranging in O(N) time with O(1) space. Sorry for not making this clear.
I think this should do:
static <T> void arrange(T[] data, int[] p) {
boolean[] done = new boolean[p.length];
for (int i = 0; i < p.length; i++) {
if (!done[i]) {
T t = data[i];
for (int j = i;;) {
done[j] = true;
if (p[j] != i) {
data[j] = data[p[j]];
j = p[j];
} else {
data[j] = t;
break;
}
}
}
}
}
Note: This is Java. If you do this in a language without garbage collection, be sure to delete done.
If you care about space, you can use a BitSet for done. I assume you can afford an additional bit per element because you seem willing to work with a permutation array, which is several times that size.
This algorithm copies instances of T n + k times, where k is the number of cycles in the permutation. You can reduce this to the optimal number of copies by skipping those i where p[i] = i.
The approach is to follow the "permutation cycles" of the permutation, rather than indexing the array left-to-right. But since you do have to begin somewhere, everytime a new permutation cycle is needed, the search for unpermuted elements is left-to-right:
// Pseudo-code
N : integer, N > 0 // N is the number of elements
swaps : integer [0..N]
data[N] : array of object
permute[N] : array of integer [-1..N] denoting permutation (used element is -1)
next_scan_start : integer;
next_scan_start = 0;
while (swaps < N )
{
// Search for the next index that is not-yet-permtued.
for (idx_cycle_search = next_scan_start;
idx_cycle_search < N;
++ idx_cycle_search)
if (permute[idx_cycle_search] >= 0)
break;
next_scan_start = idx_cycle_search + 1;
// This is a provable invariant. In short, number of non-negative
// elements in permute[] equals (N - swaps)
assert( idx_cycle_search < N );
// Completely permute one permutation cycle, 'following the
// permutation cycle's trail' This is O(N)
while (permute[idx_cycle_search] >= 0)
{
swap( data[idx_cycle_search], data[permute[idx_cycle_search] )
swaps ++;
old_idx = idx_cycle_search;
idx_cycle_search = permute[idx_cycle_search];
permute[old_idx] = -1;
// Also '= -idx_cycle_search -1' could be used rather than '-1'
// and would allow reversal of these changes to permute[] array
}
}
Do you mean that you have an array of objects O[1..N] and then you have an array P[1..N] that contains a permutation of numbers 1..N and in the end you want to get an array O1 of objects such that O1[k] = O[P[k]] for all k=1..N ?
As an example, if your objects are letters A,B,C...,Y,Z and your array P is [26,25,24,..,2,1] is your desired output Z,Y,...C,B,A ?
If yes, I believe you can do it in linear time using only O(1) additional memory. Reversing elements of an array is a special case of this scenario. In general, I think you would need to consider decomposition of your permutation P into cycles and then use it to move around the elements of your original array O[].
If that's what you are looking for, I can elaborate more.
EDIT: Others already presented excellent solutions while I was sleeping, so no need to repeat it here. ^_^
EDIT: My O(1) additional space is indeed not entirely correct. I was thinking only about "data" elements, but in fact you also need to store one bit per permutation element, so if we are precise, we need O(log n) extra bits for that. But most of the time using a sign bit (as suggested by J.F. Sebastian) is fine, so in practice we may not need anything more than we already have.
If you didn't mind allocating memory for an extra hash of indexes, you could keep a mapping of original location to current location to get a time complexity of near O(n). Here's an example in Ruby, since it's readable and pseudocode-ish. (This could be shorter or more idiomatically Ruby-ish, but I've written it out for clarity.)
#!/usr/bin/ruby
objects = ['d', 'e', 'a', 'c', 'b']
order = [2, 4, 3, 0, 1]
cur_locations = {}
order.each_with_index do |orig_location, ordinality|
# Find the current location of the item.
cur_location = orig_location
while not cur_locations[cur_location].nil? do
cur_location = cur_locations[cur_location]
end
# Swap the items and keep track of whatever we swapped forward.
objects[ordinality], objects[cur_location] = objects[cur_location], objects[ordinality]
cur_locations[ordinality] = orig_location
end
puts objects.join(' ')
That obviously does involve some extra memory for the hash, but since it's just for indexes and not your "fairly large" objects, hopefully that's acceptable. Since hash lookups are O(1), even though there is a slight bump to the complexity due to the case where an item has been swapped forward more than once and you have to rewrite cur_location multiple times, the algorithm as a whole should be reasonably close to O(n).
If you wanted you could build a full hash of original to current positions ahead of time, or keep a reverse hash of current to original, and modify the algorithm a bit to get it down to strictly O(n). It'd be a little more complicated and take a little more space, so this is the version I wrote out, but the modifications shouldn't be difficult.
EDIT: Actually, I'm fairly certain the time complexity is just O(n), since each ordinality can have at most one hop associated, and thus the maximum number of lookups is limited to n.
#!/usr/bin/env python
def rearrange(objects, permutation):
"""Rearrange `objects` inplace according to `permutation`.
``result = [objects[p] for p in permutation]``
"""
seen = [False] * len(permutation)
for i, already_seen in enumerate(seen):
if not already_seen: # start permutation cycle
first_obj, j = objects[i], i
while True:
seen[j] = True
p = permutation[j]
if p == i: # end permutation cycle
objects[j] = first_obj # [old] p -> j
break
objects[j], j = objects[p], p # p -> j
The algorithm (as I've noticed after I wrote it) is the same as the one from #meriton's answer in Java.
Here's a test function for the code:
def test():
import itertools
N = 9
for perm in itertools.permutations(range(N)):
L = range(N)
LL = L[:]
rearrange(L, perm)
assert L == [LL[i] for i in perm] == list(perm), (L, list(perm), LL)
# test whether assertions are enabled
try:
assert 0
except AssertionError:
pass
else:
raise RuntimeError("assertions must be enabled for the test")
if __name__ == "__main__":
test()
There's a histogram sort, though the running time is given as a bit higher than O(N) (N log log n).
I can do it given O(N) scratch space -- copy to new array and copy back.
EDIT: I am aware of the existance of an algorithm that will proceed through. The idea is to perform the swaps on the array of integers 1..N while at the same time mirroring the swaps on your array of large objects. I just cannot find the algorithm right now.
The problem is one of applying a permutation in place with minimal O(1) extra storage: "in-situ permutation".
It is solvable, but an algorithm is not obvious beforehand.
It is described briefly as an exercise in Knuth, and for work I had to decipher it and figure out how it worked. Look at 5.2 #13.
For some more modern work on this problem, with pseudocode:
http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/imperia/md/content/fakultaetfuermathematikundinformatik/forschung/berichte/bericht_273.pdf
I ended up writing a different algorithm for this, which first generates a list of swaps to apply an order and then runs through the swaps to apply it. The advantage is that if you're applying the ordering to multiple lists, you can reuse the swap list, since the swap algorithm is extremely simple.
void make_swaps(vector<int> order, vector<pair<int,int>> &swaps)
{
// order[0] is the index in the old list of the new list's first value.
// Invert the mapping: inverse[0] is the index in the new list of the
// old list's first value.
vector<int> inverse(order.size());
for(int i = 0; i < order.size(); ++i)
inverse[order[i]] = i;
swaps.resize(0);
for(int idx1 = 0; idx1 < order.size(); ++idx1)
{
// Swap list[idx] with list[order[idx]], and record this swap.
int idx2 = order[idx1];
if(idx1 == idx2)
continue;
swaps.push_back(make_pair(idx1, idx2));
// list[idx1] is now in the correct place, but whoever wanted the value we moved out
// of idx2 now needs to look in its new position.
int idx1_dep = inverse[idx1];
order[idx1_dep] = idx2;
inverse[idx2] = idx1_dep;
}
}
template<typename T>
void run_swaps(T data, const vector<pair<int,int>> &swaps)
{
for(const auto &s: swaps)
{
int src = s.first;
int dst = s.second;
swap(data[src], data[dst]);
}
}
void test()
{
vector<int> order = { 2, 3, 1, 4, 0 };
vector<pair<int,int>> swaps;
make_swaps(order, swaps);
vector<string> data = { "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" };
run_swaps(data, swaps);
}