Related
This question already has an answer here:
subset sum find all subsets that add up to a number
(1 answer)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have 2 input
array: {3,6,9,0,2,1,3} // positive number and can repeat also
Sum = 9
Need to find a combination(order not mandatory) of array element which has total to Sum(here for example it's 9).
Output expected :
{3,6}
{9}
{6,3}
{3,2,1,3}
I am not able to solve it. So, please don't ask for my solution. Please help by solving in java.
This problem can be solved by printing all the subsets with given sum.
Have a look at the following implementation:
// A Java program to count all subsets with given sum.
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class SubSet_sum_problem
{
// dp[i][j] is going to store true if sum j is
// possible with array elements from 0 to i.
static boolean[][] dp;
static void display(ArrayList<Integer> v)
{
System.out.println(v);
}
// A recursive function to print all subsets with the
// help of dp[][]. Vector p[] stores current subset.
static void printSubsetsRec(int arr[], int i, int sum,
ArrayList<Integer> p)
{
// If we reached end and sum is non-zero. We print
// p[] only if arr[0] is equal to sun OR dp[0][sum]
// is true.
if (i == 0 && sum != 0 && dp[0][sum])
{
p.add(arr[i]);
display(p);
p.clear();
return;
}
// If sum becomes 0
if (i == 0 && sum == 0)
{
display(p);
p.clear();
return;
}
// If given sum can be achieved after ignoring
// current element.
if (dp[i-1][sum])
{
// Create a new vector to store path
ArrayList<Integer> b = new ArrayList<>();
b.addAll(p);
printSubsetsRec(arr, i-1, sum, b);
}
// If given sum can be achieved after considering
// current element.
if (sum >= arr[i] && dp[i-1][sum-arr[i]])
{
p.add(arr[i]);
printSubsetsRec(arr, i-1, sum-arr[i], p);
}
}
// Prints all subsets of arr[0..n-1] with sum 0.
static void printAllSubsets(int arr[], int n, int sum)
{
if (n == 0 || sum < 0)
return;
// Sum 0 can always be achieved with 0 elements
dp = new boolean[n][sum + 1];
for (int i=0; i<n; ++i)
{
dp[i][0] = true;
}
// Sum arr[0] can be achieved with single element
if (arr[0] <= sum)
dp[0][arr[0]] = true;
// Fill rest of the entries in dp[][]
for (int i = 1; i < n; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < sum + 1; ++j)
dp[i][j] = (arr[i] <= j) ? (dp[i-1][j] ||
dp[i-1][j-arr[i]])
: dp[i - 1][j];
if (dp[n-1][sum] == false)
{
System.out.println("There are no subsets with" +
" sum "+ sum);
return;
}
// Now recursively traverse dp[][] to find all
// paths from dp[n-1][sum]
ArrayList<Integer> p = new ArrayList<>();
printSubsetsRec(arr, n-1, sum, p);
}
//Driver Program to test above functions
public static void main(String args[])
{
int arr[] = {3, 6, 9, 0, 2, 1, 3};
int n = arr.length;
int sum = 9;
printAllSubsets(arr, n, sum);
}
}
Output:
[6, 3]
[9]
[0, 6, 3]
[0, 9]
[1, 2, 6]
[1, 2, 0, 6]
[3, 6]
[3, 0, 6]
[3, 1, 2, 3]
[3, 1, 2, 0, 3]
I'm working on sorting an integer sequence with no identical numbers (without loss of generality, let's assume the sequence is a permutation of 1,2,...,n) into its natural increasing order (i.e. 1,2,...,n). I was thinking about directly swapping the elements (regardless of the positions of elements; in other words, a swap is valid for any two elements) with minimal number of swaps (the following may be a feasible solution):
Swap two elements with the constraint that either one or both of them should be swapped into the correct position(s). Until every element is put in its correct position.
But I don't know how to mathematically prove if the above solution is optimal. Anyone can help?
I was able to prove this with graph-theory. Might want to add that tag in :)
Create a graph with n vertices. Create an edge from node n_i to n_j if the element in position i should be in position j in the correct ordering. You will now have a graph consisting of several non-intersecting cycles. I argue that the minimum number of swaps needed to order the graph correctly is
M = sum (c in cycles) size(c) - 1
Take a second to convince yourself of that...if two items are in a cycle, one swap can just take care of them. If three items are in a cycle, you can swap a pair to put one in the right spot, and a two-cycle remains, etc. If n items are in a cycle, you need n-1 swaps. (This is always true even if you don't swap with immediate neighbors.)
Given that, you may now be able to see why your algorithm is optimal. If you do a swap and at least one item is in the right position, then it will always reduce the value of M by 1. For any cycle of length n, consider swapping an element into the correct spot, occupied by its neighbor. You now have a correctly ordered element, and a cycle of length n-1.
Since M is the minimum number of swaps, and your algorithm always reduces M by 1 for each swap, it must be optimal.
All the cycle counting is very difficult to keep in your head. There is a way that is much simpler to memorize.
First, let's go through a sample case manually.
Sequence: [7, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6]
Enumerate it: [(0, 7), (1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (4, 4), (5, 5), (6, 6)]
Sort the enumeration by value: [(1, 1), (3, 2), (2, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5), (6, 6), (0, 7)]
Start from the beginning. While the index is different from the enumerated index keep on swapping the elements defined by index and enumerated index. Remember: swap(0,2);swap(0,3) is the same as swap(2,3);swap(0,2)
swap(0, 1) => [(3, 2), (1, 1), (2, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5), (6, 6), (0, 7)]
swap(0, 3) => [(4, 4), (1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (5, 5), (6, 6), (0, 7)]
swap(0, 4) => [(5, 5), (1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (4, 4), (6, 6), (0, 7)]
swap(0, 5) => [(6, 6), (1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (4, 4), (5, 5), (0, 7)]
swap(0, 6) => [(0, 7), (1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (4, 4), (5, 5), (6, 6)]
I.e. semantically you sort the elements and then figure out how to put them to the initial state via swapping through the leftmost item that is out of place.
Python algorithm is as simple as this:
def swap(arr, i, j):
arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]
def minimum_swaps(arr):
annotated = [*enumerate(arr)]
annotated.sort(key = lambda it: it[1])
count = 0
i = 0
while i < len(arr):
if annotated[i][0] == i:
i += 1
continue
swap(annotated, i, annotated[i][0])
count += 1
return count
Thus, you don't need to memorize visited nodes or compute some cycle length.
For your reference, here is an algorithm that I wrote, to generate the minimum number of swaps needed to sort the array. It finds the cycles as described by #Andrew Mao.
/**
* Finds the minimum number of swaps to sort given array in increasing order.
* #param ar array of <strong>non-negative distinct</strong> integers.
* input array will be overwritten during the call!
* #return min no of swaps
*/
public int findMinSwapsToSort(int[] ar) {
int n = ar.length;
Map<Integer, Integer> m = new HashMap<>();
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
m.put(ar[i], i);
}
Arrays.sort(ar);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
ar[i] = m.get(ar[i]);
}
m = null;
int swaps = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
int val = ar[i];
if (val < 0) continue;
while (val != i) {
int new_val = ar[val];
ar[val] = -1;
val = new_val;
swaps++;
}
ar[i] = -1;
}
return swaps;
}
We do not need to swap the actual elements, just find how many elements are not in the right index (Cycle).
The min swaps will be Cycle - 1;
Here is the code...
static int minimumSwaps(int[] arr) {
int swap=0;
boolean visited[]=new boolean[arr.length];
for(int i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
int j=i,cycle=0;
while(!visited[j]){
visited[j]=true;
j=arr[j]-1;
cycle++;
}
if(cycle!=0)
swap+=cycle-1;
}
return swap;
}
#Archibald, I like your solution, and such was my initial assumptions that sorting the array would be the simplest solution, but I don't see the need to go through the effort of the reverse-traverse as I've dubbed it, ie enumerating then sorting the array and then computing the swaps for the enums.
I find it simpler to subtract 1 from each element in the array and then to compute the swaps required to sort that list
here is my tweak/solution:
def swap(arr, i, j):
tmp = arr[i]
arr[i] = arr[j]
arr[j] = tmp
def minimum_swaps(arr):
a = [x - 1 for x in arr]
swaps = 0
i = 0
while i < len(a):
if a[i] == i:
i += 1
continue
swap(a, i, a[i])
swaps += 1
return swaps
As for proving optimality, I think #arax has a good point.
// Assuming that we are dealing with only sequence started with zero
function minimumSwaps(arr) {
var len = arr.length
var visitedarr = []
var i, start, j, swap = 0
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (!visitedarr[i]) {
start = j = i
var cycleNode = 1
while (arr[j] != start) {
j = arr[j]
visitedarr[j] = true
cycleNode++
}
swap += cycleNode - 1
}
}
return swap
}
I really liked the solution of #Ieuan Uys in Python.
What I improved on his solution;
While loop is iterated one less to increase speed; while i < len(a) - 1
Swap function is de-capsulated to make one, single function.
Extensive code comments are added to increase readability.
My code in python.
def minimumSwaps(arr):
#make array values starting from zero to match index values.
a = [x - 1 for x in arr]
#initialize number of swaps and iterator.
swaps = 0
i = 0
while i < len(a)-1:
if a[i] == i:
i += 1
continue
#swap.
tmp = a[i] #create temp variable assign it to a[i]
a[i] = a[tmp] #assign value of a[i] with a[tmp]
a[tmp] = tmp #assign value of a[tmp] with tmp (or initial a[i])
#calculate number of swaps.
swaps += 1
return swaps
Detailed explanation on what code does on an array with size n;
We check every value except last one (n-1 iterations) in the array one by one. If the value does not match with array index, then we send this value to its place where index value is equal to its value. For instance, if at a[0] = 3. Then this value should swap with a[3]. a[0] and a[3] is swapped. Value 3 will be at a[3] where it is supposed to be. One value is sent to its place. We have n-2 iteration left. I am not interested what is now a[0]. If it is not 0 at that location, it will be swapped by another value latter. Because that another value also exists in a wrong place, this will be recognized by while loop latter.
Real Example
a[4, 2, 1, 0, 3]
#iteration 0, check a[0]. 4 should be located at a[4] where the value is 3. Swap them.
a[3, 2, 1, 0, 4] #we sent 4 to the right location now.
#iteration 1, check a[1]. 2 should be located at a[2] where the value is 1. Swap them.
a[3, 1, 2, 0, 4] #we sent 2 to the right location now.
#iteration 2, check a[2]. 2 is already located at a[2]. Don't do anything, continue.
a[3, 1, 2, 0, 4]
#iteration 3, check a[3]. 0 should be located at a[0] where the value is 3. Swap them.
a[0, 1, 2, 3, 4] #we sent 0 to the right location now.
# There is no need to check final value of array. Since all swaps are done.
Nicely done solution by #bekce. If using C#, the initial code of setting up the modified array ar can be succinctly expressed as:
var origIndexes = Enumerable.Range(0, n).ToArray();
Array.Sort(ar, origIndexes);
then use origIndexes instead of ar in the rest of the code.
Swift 4 version:
func minimumSwaps(arr: [Int]) -> Int {
struct Pair {
let index: Int
let value: Int
}
var positions = arr.enumerated().map { Pair(index: $0, value: $1) }
positions.sort { $0.value < $1.value }
var indexes = positions.map { $0.index }
var swaps = 0
for i in 0 ..< indexes.count {
var val = indexes[i]
if val < 0 {
continue // Already visited.
}
while val != i {
let new_val = indexes[val]
indexes[val] = -1
val = new_val
swaps += 1
}
indexes[i] = -1
}
return swaps
}
This is the sample code in C++ that finds the minimum number of swaps to sort a permutation of the sequence of (1,2,3,4,5,.......n-2,n-1,n)
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n,i,j,k,num = 0;
cin >> n;
int arr[n+1];
for(i = 1;i <= n;++i)cin >> arr[i];
for(i = 1;i <= n;++i)
{
if(i != arr[i])// condition to check if an element is in a cycle r nt
{
j = arr[i];
arr[i] = 0;
while(j != 0)// Here i am traversing a cycle as mentioned in
{ // first answer
k = arr[j];
arr[j] = j;
j = k;
num++;// reducing cycle by one node each time
}
num--;
}
}
for(i = 1;i <= n;++i)cout << arr[i] << " ";cout << endl;
cout << num << endl;
return 0;
}
Solution using Javascript.
First I set all the elements with their current index that need to be ordered, and then I iterate over the map to order only the elements that need to be swapped.
function minimumSwaps(arr) {
const mapUnorderedPositions = new Map()
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i] !== i+1) {
mapUnorderedPositions.set(arr[i], i)
}
}
let minSwaps = 0
while (mapUnorderedPositions.size > 1) {
const currentElement = mapUnorderedPositions.entries().next().value
const x = currentElement[0]
const y = currentElement[1]
// Skip element in map if its already ordered
if (x-1 !== y) {
// Update unordered position index of swapped element
mapUnorderedPositions.set(arr[x-1], y)
// swap in array
arr[y] = arr[x-1]
arr[x-1] = x
// Increment swaps
minSwaps++
}
mapUnorderedPositions.delete(x)
}
return minSwaps
}
If you have an input like 7 2 4 3 5 6 1, this is how the debugging will go:
Map { 7 => 0, 4 => 2, 3 => 3, 1 => 6 }
currentElement [ 7, 0 ]
swapping 1 with 7
[ 1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7 ]
currentElement [ 4, 2 ]
swapping 3 with 4
[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]
currentElement [ 3, 2 ]
skipped
minSwaps = 2
Finding the minimum number of swaps required to put a permutation of 1..N in order.
We can use that the we know what the sort result would be: 1..N, which means we don't actually have to do swaps just count them.
The shuffling of 1..N is called a permutation, and is composed of disjoint cyclic permutations, for example, this permutation of 1..6:
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 4 2 3 5 1
Is composed of the cyclic permutations (1,6)(2,4,3)(5)
1->6(->1) cycle: 1 swap
2->4->3(->2) cycle: 2 swaps
5(->5) cycle: 0 swaps
So a cycle of k elements requires k-1 swaps to put in order.
Since we know where each element "belongs" (i.e. value k belongs at position k-1) we can easily traverse the cycle. Start at 0, we get 6, which belongs at 5,
and there we find 1, which belongs at 0 and we're back where we started.
To avoid re-counting a cycle later, we track which elements were visited - alternatively you could perform the swaps so that the elements are in the right place when you visit them later.
The resulting code:
def minimumSwaps(arr):
visited = [False] * len(arr)
numswaps = 0
for i in range(len(arr)):
if not visited[i]:
visited[i] = True
j = arr[i]-1
while not visited[j]:
numswaps += 1
visited[j] = True
j = arr[j]-1
return numswaps
An implementation on integers with primitive types in Java (and tests).
import java.util.Arrays;
public class MinSwaps {
public static int computate(int[] unordered) {
int size = unordered.length;
int[] ordered = order(unordered);
int[] realPositions = realPositions(ordered, unordered);
boolean[] touchs = new boolean[size];
Arrays.fill(touchs, false);
int i;
int landing;
int swaps = 0;
for(i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if(!touchs[i]) {
landing = realPositions[i];
while(!touchs[landing]) {
touchs[landing] = true;
landing = realPositions[landing];
if(!touchs[landing]) { swaps++; }
}
}
}
return swaps;
}
private static int[] realPositions(int[] ordered, int[] unordered) {
int i;
int[] positions = new int[unordered.length];
for(i = 0; i < unordered.length; i++) {
positions[i] = position(ordered, unordered[i]);
}
return positions;
}
private static int position(int[] ordered, int value) {
int i;
for(i = 0; i < ordered.length; i++) {
if(ordered[i] == value) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
private static int[] order(int[] unordered) {
int[] ordered = unordered.clone();
Arrays.sort(ordered);
return ordered;
}
}
Tests
import org.junit.Test;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
public class MinimumSwapsSpec {
#Test
public void example() {
// setup
int[] unordered = new int[] { 40, 23, 1, 7, 52, 31 };
// run
int minSwaps = MinSwaps.computate(unordered);
// verify
assertEquals(5, minSwaps);
}
#Test
public void example2() {
// setup
int[] unordered = new int[] { 4, 3, 2, 1 };
// run
int minSwaps = MinSwaps.computate(unordered);
// verify
assertEquals(2, minSwaps);
}
#Test
public void example3() {
// setup
int[] unordered = new int[] {1, 5, 4, 3, 2};
// run
int minSwaps = MinSwaps.computate(unordered);
// verify
assertEquals(2, minSwaps);
}
}
Swift 4.2:
func minimumSwaps(arr: [Int]) -> Int {
let sortedValueIdx = arr.sorted().enumerated()
.reduce(into: [Int: Int](), { $0[$1.element] = $1.offset })
var checked = Array(repeating: false, count: arr.count)
var swaps = 0
for idx in 0 ..< arr.count {
if checked[idx] { continue }
var edges = 1
var cursorIdx = idx
while true {
let cursorEl = arr[cursorIdx]
let targetIdx = sortedValueIdx[cursorEl]!
if targetIdx == idx {
break
} else {
cursorIdx = targetIdx
edges += 1
}
checked[targetIdx] = true
}
swaps += edges - 1
}
return swaps
}
Python code
A = [4,3,2,1]
count = 0
for i in range (len(A)):
min_idx = i
for j in range (i+1,len(A)):
if A[min_idx] > A[j]:
min_idx = j
if min_idx > i:
A[i],A[min_idx] = A[min_idx],A[i]
count = count + 1
print "Swap required : %d" %count
In Javascript
If the count of the array starts with 1
function minimumSwaps(arr) {
var len = arr.length
var visitedarr = []
var i, start, j, swap = 0
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (!visitedarr[i]) {
start = j = i
var cycleNode = 1
while (arr[j] != start + 1) {
j = arr[j] - 1
visitedarr[j] = true
cycleNode++
}
swap += cycleNode - 1
}
}
return swap
}
else for input starting with 0
function minimumSwaps(arr) {
var len = arr.length
var visitedarr = []
var i, start, j, swap = 0
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (!visitedarr[i]) {
start = j = i
var cycleNode = 1
while (arr[j] != start) {
j = arr[j]
visitedarr[j] = true
cycleNode++
}
swap += cycleNode - 1
}
}
return swap
}
Just extending Darshan Puttaswamy code for current HackerEarth inputs
Here's a solution in Java for what #Archibald has already explained.
static int minimumSwaps(int[] arr){
int swaps = 0;
int[] arrCopy = arr.clone();
HashMap<Integer, Integer> originalPositionMap
= new HashMap<>();
for(int i = 0 ; i < arr.length ; i++){
originalPositionMap.put(arr[i], i);
}
Arrays.sort(arr);
for(int i = 0 ; i < arr.length ; i++){
while(arr[i] != arrCopy[i]){
//swap
int temp = arr[i];
arr[i] = arr[originalPositionMap.get(temp)];
arr[originalPositionMap.get(temp)] = temp;
swaps += 1;
}
}
return swaps;
}
def swap_sort(arr)
changes = 0
loop do
# Find a number that is out-of-place
_, i = arr.each_with_index.find { |val, index| val != (index + 1) }
if i != nil
# If such a number is found, then `j` is the position that the out-of-place number points to.
j = arr[i] - 1
# Swap the out-of-place number with number from position `j`.
arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]
# Increase swap counter.
changes += 1
else
# If there are no out-of-place number, it means the array is sorted, and we're done.
return changes
end
end
end
Apple Swift version 5.2.4
func minimumSwaps(arr: [Int]) -> Int {
var swapCount = 0
var arrayPositionValue = [(Int, Int)]()
var visitedDictionary = [Int: Bool]()
for (index, number) in arr.enumerated() {
arrayPositionValue.append((index, number))
visitedDictionary[index] = false
}
arrayPositionValue = arrayPositionValue.sorted{ $0.1 < $1.1 }
for i in 0..<arr.count {
var cycleSize = 0
var visitedIndex = i
while !visitedDictionary[visitedIndex]! {
visitedDictionary[visitedIndex] = true
visitedIndex = arrayPositionValue[visitedIndex].0
cycleSize += 1
}
if cycleSize > 0 {
swapCount += cycleSize - 1
}
}
return swapCount
}
Go version 1.17:
func minimumSwaps(arr []int32) int32 {
var swap int32
for i := 0; i < len(arr) - 1; i++{
for j := 0; j < len(arr); j++ {
if arr[j] > arr[i] {
arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]
swap++
}else {
continue
}
}
}
return swap
}
I've just done the following Codility Peaks problem. The problem is as follows:
A non-empty zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers is given.
A peak is an array element which is larger than its neighbors. More precisely, it is an index P such that 0 < P < N − 1, A[P − 1] < A[P] and A[P] > A[P + 1].
For example, the following array A:
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 2
A[2] = 3
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 3
A[5] = 4
A[6] = 1
A[7] = 2
A[8] = 3
A[9] = 4
A[10] = 6
A[11] = 2
has exactly three peaks: 3, 5, 10.
We want to divide this array into blocks containing the same number of elements. More precisely, we want to choose a number K that will yield the following blocks:
A[0], A[1], ..., A[K − 1],
A[K], A[K + 1], ..., A[2K − 1],
...
A[N − K], A[N − K + 1], ..., A[N − 1].
What's more, every block should contain at least one peak. Notice that extreme elements of the blocks (for example A[K − 1] or A[K]) can also be peaks, but only if they have both neighbors (including one in an adjacent blocks).
The goal is to find the maximum number of blocks into which the array A can be divided.
Array A can be divided into blocks as follows:
one block (1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2). This block contains three peaks.
two blocks (1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4) and (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2). Every block has a peak.
three blocks (1, 2, 3, 4), (3, 4, 1, 2), (3, 4, 6, 2). Every block has a peak.
Notice in particular that the first block (1, 2, 3, 4) has a peak at A[3], because A[2] < A[3] > A[4], even though A[4] is in the adjacent block.
However, array A cannot be divided into four blocks, (1, 2, 3), (4, 3, 4), (1, 2, 3) and (4, 6, 2), because the (1, 2, 3) blocks do not contain a peak. Notice in particular that the (4, 3, 4) block contains two peaks: A[3] and A[5].
The maximum number of blocks that array A can be divided into is three.
Write a function:
class Solution { public int solution(int[] A); }
that, given a non-empty zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers, returns the maximum number of blocks into which A can be divided.
If A cannot be divided into some number of blocks, the function should return 0.
For example, given:
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 2
A[2] = 3
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 3
A[5] = 4
A[6] = 1
A[7] = 2
A[8] = 3
A[9] = 4
A[10] = 6
A[11] = 2
the function should return 3, as explained above.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [0..1,000,000,000].
Complexity:
expected worst-case time complexity is O(N*log(log(N)))
expected worst-case space complexity is O(N), beyond input storage (not counting the storage required for input arguments).
Elements of input arrays can be modified.
My Question
So I solve this with what to me appears to be the brute force solution – go through every group size from 1..N, and check whether every group has at least one peak. The first 15 minutes I was trying to solve this I was trying to figure out some more optimal way, since the required complexity is O(N*log(log(N))).
This is my "brute-force" code that passes all the tests, including the large ones, for a score of 100/100:
public int solution(int[] A) {
int N = A.length;
ArrayList<Integer> peaks = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for(int i = 1; i < N-1; i++){
if(A[i] > A[i-1] && A[i] > A[i+1]) peaks.add(i);
}
for(int size = 1; size <= N; size++){
if(N % size != 0) continue;
int find = 0;
int groups = N/size;
boolean ok = true;
for(int peakIdx : peaks){
if(peakIdx/size > find){
ok = false;
break;
}
if(peakIdx/size == find) find++;
}
if(find != groups) ok = false;
if(ok) return groups;
}
return 0;
}
My question is how do I deduce that this is in fact O(N*log(log(N))), as it's not at all obvious to me, and I was surprised I pass the test cases. I'm looking for even the simplest complexity proof sketch that would convince me of this runtime. I would assume that a log(log(N)) factor means some kind of reduction of a problem by a square root on each iteration, but I have no idea how this applies to my problem. Thanks a lot for any help
You're completely right: to get the log log performance the problem needs to be reduced.
A n.log(log(n)) solution in python [below]. Codility no longer test 'performance' on this problem (!) but the python solution scores 100% for accuracy.
As you've already surmised:
Outer loop will be O(n) since it is testing whether each size of block is a clean divisor
Inner loop must be O(log(log(n))) to give O(n log(log(n))) overall.
We can get good inner loop performance because we only need to perform d(n), the number of divisors of n. We can store a prefix sum of peaks-so-far, which uses the O(n) space allowed by the problem specification. Checking whether a peak has occurred in each 'group' is then an O(1) lookup operation using the group start and end indices.
Following this logic, when the candidate block size is 3 the loop needs to perform n / 3 peak checks. The complexity becomes a sum: n/a + n/b + ... + n/n where the denominators (a, b, ...) are the factors of n.
Short story: The complexity of n.d(n) operations is O(n.log(log(n))).
Longer version:
If you've been doing the Codility Lessons you'll remember from the Lesson 8: Prime and composite numbers that the sum of harmonic number operations will give O(log(n)) complexity. We've got a reduced set, because we're only looking at factor denominators. Lesson 9: Sieve of Eratosthenes shows how the sum of reciprocals of primes is O(log(log(n))) and claims that 'the proof is non-trivial'. In this case Wikipedia tells us that the sum of divisors sigma(n) has an upper bound (see Robin's inequality, about half way down the page).
Does that completely answer your question? Suggestions on how to improve my python code are also very welcome!
def solution(data):
length = len(data)
# array ends can't be peaks, len < 3 must return 0
if len < 3:
return 0
peaks = [0] * length
# compute a list of 'peaks to the left' in O(n) time
for index in range(2, length):
peaks[index] = peaks[index - 1]
# check if there was a peak to the left, add it to the count
if data[index - 1] > data[index - 2] and data[index - 1] > data[index]:
peaks[index] += 1
# candidate is the block size we're going to test
for candidate in range(3, length + 1):
# skip if not a factor
if length % candidate != 0:
continue
# test at each point n / block
valid = True
index = candidate
while index != length:
# if no peak in this block, break
if peaks[index] == peaks[index - candidate]:
valid = False
break
index += candidate
# one additional check since peaks[length] is outside of array
if index == length and peaks[index - 1] == peaks[index - candidate]:
valid = False
if valid:
return length / candidate
return 0
Credits:
Major kudos to #tmyklebu for his SO answer which helped me a lot.
I'm don't think that the time complexity of your algorithm is O(Nlog(logN)).
However, it is certainly much lesser than O(N^2). This is because your inner loop is entered only k times where k is the number of factors of N. The number of factors of an integer can be seen in this link: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/blue/NumberOfFactors.shtml
I may be inaccurate but from the link it seems,
k ~ logN * logN * logN ...
Also, the inner loop has a complexity of O(N) since the number of peaks can be N/2 in the worst case.
Hence, in my opinion, the complexity of your algorithm is O(NlogN) at best but it must be sufficient to clear all test cases.
#radicality
There's at least one point where you can optimize the number of passes in the second loop to O(sqrt(N)) -- collect divisors of N and iterate through them only.
That will make your algo a little less "brute force".
Problem definition allows for O(N) space complexity. You can store divisors without violating this condition.
This is my solution based on prefix sums. Hope it helps:
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int n = A.length;
int result = 1;
if (n < 3)
return 0;
int[] prefixSums = new int[n];
for (int i = 1; i < n-1; i++)
if (A[i] > A[i-1] && A[i] > A[i+1])
prefixSums[i] = prefixSums[i-1] + 1;
else
prefixSums[i] = prefixSums[i-1];
prefixSums[n-1] = prefixSums[n-2];
if (prefixSums[n-1] <= 1)
return prefixSums[n-1];
for (int i = 2; i <= prefixSums[n-2]; i++) {
if (n % i != 0)
continue;
int prev = 0;
boolean containsPeak = true;
for (int j = n/i - 1; j < n; j += n/i) {
if (prefixSums[j] == prev) {
containsPeak = false;
break;
}
prev = prefixSums[j];
}
if (containsPeak)
result = i;
}
return result;
}
}
def solution(A):
length = len(A)
if length <= 2:
return 0
peek_indexes = []
for index in range(1, length-1):
if A[index] > A[index - 1] and A[index] > A[index + 1]:
peek_indexes.append(index)
for block in range(3, int((length/2)+1)):
if length % block == 0:
index_to_check = 0
temp_blocks = 0
for peek_index in peek_indexes:
if peek_index >= index_to_check and peek_index < index_to_check + block:
temp_blocks += 1
index_to_check = index_to_check + block
if length/block == temp_blocks:
return temp_blocks
if len(peek_indexes) > 0:
return 1
else:
return 0
print(solution([1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2, 1, 2, 5, 2]))
I just found the factors at first,
then just iterated in A and tested all number of blocks to see which is the greatest block division.
This is the code that got 100 (in java)
https://app.codility.com/demo/results/training9593YB-39H/
A javascript solution with complexity of O(N * log(log(N))).
function solution(A) {
let N = A.length;
if (N < 3) return 0;
let peaks = 0;
let peaksTillNow = [ 0 ];
let dividers = [];
for (let i = 1; i < N - 1; i++) {
if (A[i - 1] < A[i] && A[i] > A[i + 1]) peaks++;
peaksTillNow.push(peaks);
if (N % i === 0) dividers.push(i);
}
peaksTillNow.push(peaks);
if (peaks === 0) return 0;
let blocks;
let result = 1;
for (blocks of dividers) {
let K = N / blocks;
let prevPeaks = 0;
let OK = true;
for (let i = 1; i <= blocks; i++) {
if (peaksTillNow[i * K - 1] > prevPeaks) {
prevPeaks = peaksTillNow[i * K - 1];
} else {
OK = false;
break;
}
}
if (OK) result = blocks;
}
return result;
}
Solution with C# code
public int GetPeaks(int[] InputArray)
{
List<int> lstPeaks = new List<int>();
lstPeaks.Add(0);
for (int Index = 1; Index < (InputArray.Length - 1); Index++)
{
if (InputArray[Index - 1] < InputArray[Index] && InputArray[Index] > InputArray[Index + 1])
{
lstPeaks.Add(1);
}
else
{
lstPeaks.Add(0);
}
}
lstPeaks.Add(0);
int totalEqBlocksWithPeaks = 0;
for (int factor = 1; factor <= InputArray.Length; factor++)
{
if (InputArray.Length % factor == 0)
{
int BlockLength = InputArray.Length / factor;
int BlockCount = factor;
bool isAllBlocksHasPeak = true;
for (int CountIndex = 1; CountIndex <= BlockCount; CountIndex++)
{
int BlockStartIndex = CountIndex == 1 ? 0 : (CountIndex - 1) * BlockLength;
int BlockEndIndex = (CountIndex * BlockLength) - 1;
if (!(lstPeaks.GetRange(BlockStartIndex, BlockLength).Sum() > 0))
{
isAllBlocksHasPeak = false;
}
}
if (isAllBlocksHasPeak)
totalEqBlocksWithPeaks++;
}
}
return totalEqBlocksWithPeaks;
}
There is actually an O(n) runtime complexity solution for this task, so this is a humble attempt to share that.
The trick to go from the proposed O(n * loglogn) solutions to O(n) is to calculate the maximum gap between any two peaks (or a leading or trailing peak to the corresponding endpoint).
This can be done while building the peak hash in the first O(n) loop.
Then, if the gap is 'g' between two consecutive peaks, then the minimum group size must be 'g/2'. It will simply be 'g' between start and first peak, or last peak and end. Also, there will be at least one peak in any group from group size 'g', so the range to check for is: g/2, 1+g/2, 2+g/2, ... g.
Therefore, the runtime is the sum over d = g/2, g/2+1, ... g) * n/d where 'd' is the divisor'.
(sum over d = g/2, 1 + g/2, ... g) * n/d = n/(g/2) + n/(1 + g/2) + ... + (n/g)
if g = 5, this n/5 + n/6 + n/7 + n/8 + n/9 + n/10 = n(1/5+1/6+1/7+1/8+1/9+1/10)
If you replace each item with the largest element, then you get sum <= n * (1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5 + 1/5) = n
Now, generalising this, every element is replaced with n / (g/2).
The number of items from g/2 to g is 1 + g/2 since there are (g - g/2 + 1) items.
So, the whole sum is: n/(g/2) * (g/2 + 1) = n + 2n/g < 3n.
Therefore, the bound on the total number of operations is O(n).
The code, implementing this in C++, is here:
int solution(vector<int> &A)
{
int sizeA = A.size();
vector<bool> hash(sizeA, false);
int min_group_size = 2;
int pi = 0;
for (int i = 1, pi = 0; i < sizeA - 1; ++i) {
const int e = A[i];
if (e > A[i - 1] && e > A[i + 1]) {
hash[i] = true;
int diff = i - pi;
if (pi) diff /= 2;
if (diff > min_group_size) min_group_size = diff;
pi = i;
}
}
min_group_size = min(min_group_size, sizeA - pi);
vector<int> hash_next(sizeA, 0);
for (int i = sizeA - 2; i >= 0; --i) {
hash_next[i] = hash[i] ? i : hash_next[i + 1];
}
for (int group_size = min_group_size; group_size <= sizeA; ++group_size) {
if (sizeA % group_size != 0) continue;
int number_of_groups = sizeA / group_size;
int group_index = 0;
for (int peak_index = 0; peak_index < sizeA; peak_index = group_index * group_size) {
peak_index = hash_next[peak_index];
if (!peak_index) break;
int lower_range = group_index * group_size;
int upper_range = lower_range + group_size - 1;
if (peak_index > upper_range) {
break;
}
++group_index;
}
if (number_of_groups == group_index) return number_of_groups;
}
return 0;
}
var prev, curr, total = 0;
for (var i=1; i<A.length; i++) {
if (curr == 0) {
curr = A[i];
} else {
if(A[i] != curr) {
if (prev != 0) {
if ((prev < curr && A[i] < curr) || (prev > curr && A[i] > curr)) {
total += 1;
}
} else {
prev = curr;
total += 1;
}
prev = curr;
curr = A[i];
}
}
}
if(prev != curr) {
total += 1;
}
return total;
I agree with GnomeDePlume answer... the piece on looking for the divisors on the proposed solution is O(N), and that could be decreased to O(sqrt(N)) by using the algorithm provided on the lesson text.
So just adding, here is my solution using Java that solves the problem on the required complexity.
Be aware, it has way more code then yours - some cleanup (debug sysouts and comments) would always be possible :-)
public int solution(int[] A) {
int result = 0;
int N = A.length;
// mark accumulated peaks
int[] peaks = new int[N];
int count = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < N -1; i++) {
if (A[i-1] < A[i] && A[i+1] < A[i])
count++;
peaks[i] = count;
}
// set peaks count on last elem as it will be needed during div checks
peaks[N-1] = count;
// check count
if (count > 0) {
// if only one peak, will need the whole array
if (count == 1)
result = 1;
else {
// at this point (peaks > 1) we know at least the single group will satisfy the criteria
// so set result to 1, then check for bigger numbers of groups
result = 1;
// for each divisor of N, check if that number of groups work
Integer[] divisors = getDivisors(N);
// result will be at least 1 at this point
boolean candidate;
int divisor, startIdx, endIdx;
// check from top value to bottom - stop when one is found
// for div 1 we know num groups is 1, and we already know that is the minimum. No need to check.
// for div = N we know it's impossible, as all elements would have to be peaks (impossible by definition)
for (int i = divisors.length-2; i > 0; i--) {
candidate = true;
divisor = divisors[i];
for (int j = 0; j < N; j+= N/divisor) {
startIdx = (j == 0 ? j : j-1);
endIdx = j + N/divisor-1;
if (peaks[startIdx] == peaks[endIdx]) {
candidate = false;
break;
}
}
// if all groups had at least 1 peak, this is the result!
if (candidate) {
result = divisor;
break;
}
}
}
}
return result;
}
// returns ordered array of all divisors of N
private Integer[] getDivisors(int N) {
Set<Integer> set = new TreeSet<Integer>();
double sqrt = Math.sqrt(N);
int i = 1;
for (; i < sqrt; i++) {
if (N % i == 0) {
set.add(i);
set.add(N/i);
}
}
if (i * i == N)
set.add(i);
return set.toArray(new Integer[]{});
}
Thanks,
Davi
This question already has answers here:
Maximum sum sublist?
(13 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
In an interview one of my friends was asked to find the subarray of an array with maximum sum, this my solution to the problem , how can I improve the solution make it more optimal , should i rather consider doing in a recursive fashion ?
def get_max_sum_subset(x):
max_subset_sum = 0
max_subset_i = 0
max_subset_j = 0
for i in range(0,len(x)+1):
for j in range(i+1,len(x)+1):
current_sum = sum(x[i:j])
if current_sum > max_subset_sum:
max_subset_sum = current_sum
max_subset_i = i
max_subset_j = j
return max_subset_sum,max_subset_i,max_subset_j
Your solution is O(n^2). The optimal solution is linear. It works so that you scan the array from left to right, taking note of the best sum and the current sum:
def get_max_sum_subset(x):
bestSoFar = 0
bestNow = 0
bestStartIndexSoFar = -1
bestStopIndexSoFar = -1
bestStartIndexNow = -1
for i in xrange(len(x)):
value = bestNow + x[i]
if value > 0:
if bestNow == 0:
bestStartIndexNow = i
bestNow = value
else:
bestNow = 0
if bestNow > bestSoFar:
bestSoFar = bestNow
bestStopIndexSoFar = i
bestStartIndexSoFar = bestStartIndexNow
return bestSoFar, bestStartIndexSoFar, bestStopIndexSoFar
This problem was also discussed thourougly in Programming Pearls: Algorithm Design Techniques (highly recommended). There you can also find a recursive solution, which is not optimal (O(n log n)), but better than O(n^2).
This is a well-known problem that displays overlapping optimal substructure, which suggests a dynamic programming (DP) solution. Although DP solutions are usually quite tricky (I think so at least!), this one is a great example to get introduced to the whole concept.
The first thing to note is that the maximal subarray (which must be a contiguous portion of the given array A) ending at position j either consists of the maximimal subarray ending at position j-1 plus A[j], or is empty (this only occurs if A[j] < 0). In other words, we are asking whether the element A[j] is contributing positively to the current maximum sum ending at position j-1. If yes, include it in the maximal subarray so far; if not, don't. Thus, from solving smaller subproblems that overlap we can build up an optimal solution.
The sum of the maximal subarray ending at position j can then be given recursively by the following relation:
sum[0] = max(0, A[0])
sum[j] = max(0, sum[j-1] + A[j])
We can build up these answers in a bottom-up fashion by scanning A from left to right. We update sum[j] as we consider A[j]. We can keep track of the overall maximum value and the location of the maximal subarray through this process as well. Here is a quick solution I wrote up in Ruby:
def max_subarray(a)
sum = [0]
max, head, tail = sum[0], -1, -1
cur_head = 0
(0...a.size).each do |j|
# base case included below since sum[-1] = sum[0]
sum[j] = [0, sum[j-1] + a[j]].max
cur_head = j if sum[j-1] == 0
if sum[j] > max
max, head, tail = sum[j], cur_head, j
end
end
return max, head, tail
end
Take a look at my gist if you'd like to test this for yourself.
This is clearly a linear O(N) algorithm since only one pass through the list is required. Hope this helps!
let n - elements count, a(i) - your array f(i) - maximum sum of subarray that ends at position i (minimum length is 1). Then:
f(0) = a(i);
f(i) = max(f(i-1), 0) + a(i); //f(i-1) when we continue subarray, or 0 - when start at i position
max(0, f(1), f(2), ... , f(n-1)) - the answer
A much better solution approach can be derived by thinking about what conditions must hold for a maximum-sum sub-array: the first item on either end that is not included (if any) must be negative and the last item on either end that is included must be non-negative. You don't need to consider any other end points for the sub-array except where these changes occur in the original data.
There is a short video from MIT that helps you understand this dynamic programming problem.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/bdean/6.046/dp/
Click on the first link under the 'problems' section and you will see it.
Here is a simple O(N) algorithm from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_subarray_problem
int maxsofar=0;
int maxendinghere=0;
for i=[0 n] {
maxendinghere=max(maxendinghere+x[i],0);
maxsofar=max(maxsofar,maxendinghere);
}
Unless I'm missing something important, if they are positive integers the subset would include the whole array, if they're integers, it would include only positive integers. Is there another constraint there?
Java solution:
Does not work for an array with all negatives.
public static int[] maxsubarray(int[] array) {
//empty array check
if (array.length == 0){
return new int[]{};
}
int max = 0;
int maxsofar = 0;
//indices
int maxsofarstart = 0;
int maxsofarend = 0;
int maxstartindex = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i] > 0) {
if (max == 0) {
maxstartindex = i;
}
max = max + array[i];
if (max > maxsofar) {
maxsofar = max;
maxsofarstart = maxstartindex;
maxsofarend = i;
}
} else {
max = 0;
}
}
return Arrays.copyOfRange(array, maxsofarstart, maxsofarend + 1);
}
here is one of most well-expained, tested, working solution - http://rerun.me/blog/2012/08/30/maximum-continuous-subarray-problem-kandanes-algorithm/
package me.rerun;
public class Kadane {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] intArr={3, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 2, 0, 0, 0 };
//int[] intArr = {-1, 3, -5, 4, 6, -1, 2, -7, 13, -3};
//int[] intArr={-6,-2,-3,-4,-1,-5,-5};
findMaxSubArray(intArr);
}
public static void findMaxSubArray(int[] inputArray){
int maxStartIndex=0;
int maxEndIndex=0;
int maxSum = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
int cumulativeSum= 0;
int maxStartIndexUntilNow=0;
for (int currentIndex = 0; currentIndex < inputArray.length; currentIndex++) {
int eachArrayItem = inputArray[currentIndex];
cumulativeSum+=eachArrayItem;
if(cumulativeSum>maxSum){
maxSum = cumulativeSum;
maxStartIndex=maxStartIndexUntilNow;
maxEndIndex = currentIndex;
}
else if (cumulativeSum<0){
maxStartIndexUntilNow=currentIndex+1;
cumulativeSum=0;
}
}
System.out.println("Max sum : "+maxSum);
System.out.println("Max start index : "+maxStartIndex);
System.out.println("Max end index : "+maxEndIndex);
}
}
This is the correct Java Code which will handle scenarios including all negative numbers.
public static long[] leftToISumMaximize(int N, long[] D) {
long[] result = new long[N];
result[0] = D[0];
long currMax = D[0];
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++) {
currMax = Math.max(D[i], currMax + D[i]);
result[i] = Math.max(result[i - 1], currMax);
}
return result;
}
Not sure but Accepted Solution didn't for work me for all the scenarios (May be I misunderstood it)
So I did small modification, instead of
if(value > 0)
I changed it yo
if(value > bestNow)
.....(I wrote it in Scala)
And it is working for the all scenarios
def findMaxSubArray(list: List[Int]): (Int, Int, Int) = {
var (bestNow,bestSoFar) = (0, 0)
var ( startIndexNow, startIndexSoFar, endIndex) = (-1, -1, -1)
for (i <- 0 until list.length) {
var value = bestNow + list(i)
if (value > bestNow) {
if (bestNow == 0)
startIndexNow = i
bestNow = value
} else
bestNow = 0
if (bestNow > bestSoFar) {
bestSoFar = bestNow
startIndexSoFar = startIndexNow
endIndex = i
}
}
return (bestSoFar, startIndexSoFar, endIndex)
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
println(findMaxSubArray(List(3, -1, 5, 3, -6, -9, 6, 1)).toString)
println(findMaxSubArray(List(3, -1, 5, 3, -6, -9, 6, 3)).toString)
println(findMaxSubArray(List(20, -1, 5, 3, -6, -9, 6)).toString)
}
Output.....
(max =8, start=2, end=3)
(max=9, start=6, end=7)
(max=20, start=0, end= 0)
I have made a function for a little more general problem:
Find maximum sum subarray (meaning its bounds and sum, not only the sum)
If two subarrays have equal sums then pick the shorter one
If two equally long subarrays have equal sums then pick the one that appears first.
Function is based on Kadane's algorithm and it runs in O(n) time. Basically, this is it:
function MaxSumSubarray(a, n, start out, len out)
-- a - Array
-- n - Length of the array
-- start - On output starting position of largest subarray
-- len - On output length of largest subarray
-- Returns sum of the largest subarray
begin
start = 0
len = 1
int sum = a[0]
curStart = 0
curLen = 1
curSum = a[0]
for i = 2 to n
begin
if a[i] >= curSum + a[i] then
begin
curStart = i
curLen = 1
curSum = a[i]
end
else
begin
curLen = curLen + 1
curSum = curSum + a[i]
end
if (curSum > sum) OR
(curSum = sum AND curLen < len) OR
(curSum = sum AND curLen = len AND curStart < start) then
begin
start = curStart
len = curLen
sum = curSum
end
end
return sum
end
I've uploaded the whole solution in C#, with analysis and examples, in this article: Maximum Sum Subarray
An array contains both positive and negative elements, find the maximum subarray whose sum equals 0.
The link in the current accepted answer requires to sign up for a membership and I do not its content.
This algorithm will find all subarrays with sum 0 and it can be easily modified to find the minimal one or to keep track of the start and end indexes. This algorithm is O(n).
Given an int[] input array, you can create an int[] tmp array where tmp[i] = tmp[i - 1] + input[i]; Each element of tmp will store the sum of the input up to that element(prefix sum of array).
Now if you check tmp, you'll notice that there might be values that are equal to each other. Let's say that this values are at indexes j an k with j < k, then the sum of the input till j is equal to the sum till k and this means that the sum of the portion of the array between j and k is 0! Specifically the 0 sum subarray will be from index j + 1 to k.
NOTE: if j + 1 == k, then k is 0 and that's it! ;)
NOTE: The algorithm should consider a virtual tmp[-1] = 0;
NOTE: An empty array has sum 0 and it's minimal and this special case should be brought up as well in an interview. Then the interviewer will say that doesn't count but that's another problem! ;)
The implementation can be done in different ways including using a HashMap with pairs but be careful with the special case in the NOTE section above.
Example:
int[] input = {4, 6, 3, -9, -5, 1, 3, 0, 2}
int[] tmp = {4, 10, 13, 4, -1, 0, 3, 3, 5}
Value 4 in tmp at index 0 and 3 ==> sum tmp 1 to 3 = 0, length (3 - 1) + 1 = 3
Value 0 in tmp at index 5 ==> sum tmp 0 to 5 = 0, length (5 - 0) + 1 = 6
Value 3 in tmp at index 6 and 7 ==> sum tmp 7 to 7 = 0, length (7 - 7) + 1 = 1
****UPDATE****
Assuming that in our tmp array we end up with multiple element with the same value then you have to consider every identical pair in it! Example (keep in mind the virtual '0' at index '-1'):
int[] array = {0, 1, -1, 0}
int[] tmp = {0, 1, 0, 0}
By applying the same algorithm described above the 0-sum subarrays are delimited by the following indexes (included):
[0] [0-2] [0-3] [1-2] [1-3] [3]
Although the presence of multiple entries with the same value might impact the complexity of the algorithm depending on the implementation, I believe that by using an inverted index on tmp (mapping a value to the indexes where it appears) we can keep the running time at O(n).
This is one the same lines as suggested by Gevorg but I have used a hash map for quick lookup. O(n) complexity used extra space though.
private static void subArraySumsZero()
{
int [] seed = new int[] {1,2,3,4,-9,6,7,-8,1,9};
int currSum = 0;
HashMap<Integer, Integer> sumMap = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
for(int i = 0 ; i < seed.length ; i ++)
{
currSum += seed[i];
if(currSum == 0)
{
System.out.println("subset : { 0 - " + i + " }");
}
else if(sumMap.get(currSum) != null)
{
System.out.println("subset : { "
+ (sumMap.get(currSum) + 1)
+ " - " + i + " }");
sumMap.put(currSum, i);
}
else
sumMap.put(currSum, i);
}
System.out.println("HASH MAP HAS: " + sumMap);
}
The output generated has index of elements (zero based):
subset : { 1 - 4 }
subset : { 3 - 7 }
subset : { 6 - 8 }
1. Given A[i]
A[i] | 2 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 2 | -1 | -1
-------+---|----|--------|---|----|---
sum[i] | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2
2. sum[i] = A[0] + A[1] + ...+ A[i]
3. build a map<Integer, Set>
4. loop through array sum, and lookup map to get the set and generate set, and push <sum[i], i> into map.
Complexity O(n)
Here's my implementation, it's the obvious approach so it's probably sub-optimized, but at least its clear. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Starts from each index of the array and calculates and compares the individual sums (tempsum) with the desired sum (in this case, sum = 0). Since the integers are signed, we must calculate every possible combination.
If you don't need the full list of sub-arrays, you can always put conditions in the inner loop to break out of it. (Say you just want to know if such a sub-array exists, just return true when tempsum = sum).
public static string[] SubArraySumList(int[] array, int sum)
{
int tempsum;
List<string> list = new List<string>();
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
tempsum = 0;
for (int j = i; j < array.Length; j++)
{
tempsum += array[j];
if (tempsum == sum)
{
list.Add(String.Format("[{0}-{1}]", i, j));
}
}
}
return list.ToArray();
}
Calling the function:
int[] array = SubArraySumList(new int { 0, -1, 1, 0 }, 0));
Printing the contents of the output array:
[0-0], [0-2], [0-3], [1-2], [1-3], [3-3]
Following solution finds max length subarray with a given sum k without using dynamic programming, but using simple rescursion. Here i_s is start index and i_e is end index for the current value of sum
##Input the array and sum to be found(0 in your case)
a = map(int,raw_input().split())
k = int(raw_input())
##initialize total sum=0
totalsum=0
##Recursive function to find max len 0
def findMaxLen(sumL,i_s,i_e):
if i_s<len(a)-1 and i_e>0:
if sumL==k:
print i_s, i_e
return (i_s,i_e)
else:
x = findMaxLen(sumL-a[i_s],i_s+1,i_e)
y = findMaxLen(sumL-a[i_e],i_s,i_e-1)
if x[1]-x[0]>y[1]-y[0]:
return x
else:
return y
else:
##Result not there
return (-1,-1)
## find total sum
for i in range(len(a)):
totalsum += a[i]
##if totalsum==0, max array is array itself
if totalsum == k:
print "seq found at",0,len(a)-1
##else use recursion
else:
print findMaxLen(totalsum,0,len(a)-1)
Time complexity is O(n) and space complexity is O(n) due to recursive memory stack
Here's an O(n) implementation in java
The idea is to iterate through the given array and for every element arr[i], calculate sum of elements form 0 to i, store each sum in HashMap.
If an element is 0, it's considerd as a a ZeroSum sub array.
if sum became 0, then there is a ZeroSum sub array, from 0 to i.
If the current sum has been seen before in HashMap, then there is a ZeroSum sub array, from that point to i.
Code:
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.*;
class Rextester
{
private static final int[] EMPTY = {};
// Returns int[] if arr[] has a subarray with sero sum
static int[] findZeroSumSubarray(int arr[])
{
if (arr.length == 0) return EMPTY;
// Creates an empty hashMap hM
HashMap<Integer, Integer> hM = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
// Initialize sum of elements
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
sum += arr[i];
if (arr[i] == 0) //Current element is 0
{
return new int[]{0};
}
else if (sum == 0) // sum of elements from 0 to i is 0
{
return Arrays.copyOfRange(arr, 0, i+1);
}
else if (hM.get(sum) != null) // sum is already present in hash map
{
return Arrays.copyOfRange(arr, hM.get(sum)+1, i+1);
}
else
{
// Add sum to hash map
hM.put(sum, i);
}
}
// We reach here only when there is no subarray with 0 sum
return null;
}
public static void main(String arg[])
{
//int arr[] = {};
int arr[] = { 2, -3, 1, 4, 6}; //Case left
//int arr[] = { 0, 2, -3, 1, 4, 6}; //Case 0
//int arr[] = { 4, 2, -3, 1, 4}; // Case middle
int result[] = findZeroSumSubarray(arr);
if (result == EMPTY){
System.out.println("An empty array is ZeroSum, LOL");
}
else if ( result != null){
System.out.println("Found a subarray with 0 sum :" );
for (int i: result) System.out.println(i);
}
else
System.out.println("No Subarray with 0 sum");
}
}
Please see the experiment here: http://rextester.com/PAKT41271
An array contains positive and negative numbers. Find the sub-array that has the maximum sum
public static int findMaxSubArray(int[] array)
{
int max=0,cumulativeSum=0,i=0,start=0,end=0,savepoint=0;
while(i<array.length)
{
if(cumulativeSum+array[i]<0)
{
cumulativeSum=0;
savepoint=start;
start=i+1;
}
else
cumulativeSum=cumulativeSum+array[i];
if(cumulativeSum>max)
{
max=cumulativeSum;
savepoint=start;
end=i;
}
i++;
}
System.out.println("Max : "+max+" Start indices : "+savepoint+" end indices : "+end);
return max;
}
Below codes can find out every possible sub-array that has a sum being a given number, and (of course) it can find out the shortest and longest sub-array of that kind.
public static void findGivenSumSubarray(int arr[], int givenSum) {
int sum = 0;
int sStart = 0, sEnd = Integer.MAX_VALUE - 1; // Start & end position of the shortest sub-array
int lStart = Integer.MAX_VALUE - 1, lEnd = 0; // Start & end position of the longest sub-array
HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>> sums = new HashMap<>();
ArrayList<Integer> indices = new ArrayList<>();
indices.add(-1);
sums.put(0, indices);
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
sum += arr[i];
indices = sums.get(sum - givenSum);
if(indices != null) {
for(int index : indices) {
System.out.println("From #" + (index + 1) + " to #" + i);
}
if(i - indices.get(indices.size() - 1) < (sEnd - sStart + 1)) {
sStart = indices.get(indices.size() - 1) + 1;
sEnd = i;
}
if(i - indices.get(0) > (lEnd - lStart + 1)) {
lStart = indices.get(0) + 1;
lEnd = i;
}
}
indices = sums.get(sum);
if(indices == null) {
indices = new ArrayList<>();
}
indices.add(i);
sums.put(sum, indices);
}
System.out.println("Shortest sub-arry: Length = " + (sEnd - sStart + 1) + ", [" + sStart + " - " + sEnd + "]");
System.out.println("Longest sub-arry: Length = " + (lEnd - lStart + 1) + ", [" + lStart + " - " + lEnd + "]");
}
Hope this help you.
private static void subArrayZeroSum(int array[] , int findSum){
Map<Integer,HashSet<Integer>> map = new HashMap<Integer,HashSet<Integer>>();
int sum = 0;
for(int index = 0 ; index < array.length ; index ++){
sum +=array[index];
if(array[index] == findSum){
System.out.println(" ["+index+"]");
}
if(sum == findSum && index > 0){
System.out.println(" [ 0 , "+index+" ]");
}
if(map.containsKey(sum)){
HashSet<Integer> set = map.get(sum);
if(set == null)
set = new HashSet<Integer>();
set.add(index);
map.put(sum, set);
for(int val : set){
if(val + 1 != index && (val + 1) < index){
System.out.println("["+(val + 1) +","+index+" ]");
}
}
}else{
HashSet<Integer> set = map.get(sum);
if(set == null)
set = new HashSet<Integer>();
set.add(index);
map.put(sum, set);
}
}
}
One of the solution:
Let's say we have an array of integer,
int[] arr = {2,1,-1,-2};
We will traverse using the for loop until we find the number < 0 OR <= 0
i = 2;
With the inner loop, we will traverse assign the value to j = i-1
So, We can able to find the positive value.
for(int i = 0; i<arr.length; i++){
int j = 0;
int sum = arr[i];
if(arr[i] < 0){
j = i - 1;
}
We will have one sum variable, which maintaining the sum of arr[i] and arr[j] and updating the result.
If the sum is < 0 then, we have to move left side of the array and so, we will decrement the j by one, j--
for(j = i-1; j>=0; j--) {
sum = sum + arr[j];
if(sum == 0){
System.out.println("Index from j=" + j+ " to i=" + i);
return true;
}
}
If the sum is > 0 then, we have to move right side of the array and so, we will increment the i
When we find the sum == 0 then we can print the j and i index and return or break the loop.
And so, It's complete in a linear time. As well we don't need to use any other data structure as well.
Another solution to this problem could be:
1. Calculate sum for entire array
2. Now follow following formula to get the largest subarray with sum zero:
Math.max(find(a,l+1,r,sum-a[l]), find(a,l,r-1,sum-a[r]));
where l=left index, r= right index, initially their value=0 and a.length-1
Idea is simple, max size we can get with sum=0, is the size of array then we start skipping elements from left and right recursively, the moment we get sum=0 we stop. Below is the code for same:
static int find(int a[]) {
int sum =0;
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
sum = sum+a[i];
}
return find(a, 0, a.length-1, sum);
}
static int find(int a[], int l, int r, int sum) {
if(l==r && sum>0) {
return 0;
}
if(sum==0) {
return r-l+1;
}
return Math.max(find(a,l+1,r,sum-a[l]), find(a,l,r-1,sum-a[r]));
}
Hope this will help.
int v[DIM] = {2, -3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, -6, 7, -5, -1};
int i,j,sum=0,counter=0;
for (i=0; i<DIM; i++) {
sum = v[i];
counter=0;
for (j=i+1; j<DIM;j++) {
sum += v[j];
counter++;
if (sum == 0) {
printf("Sub-array starting from index %d, length %d.\n",(j-counter),counter +1);
}
}
}