I have been trying to wrap my head around the concept of a recurrence relation and I see how to divide, conquer and combine. What I am failing to understand is how to derive a proper recurrence relation from a multi argument function that deals with an array of values, a lowest index, and a highest index.
More context:
My base case is when the lowest index is equal to the highest index. When that condition is met I return the the element from the lowest index. (Which is also the highest) It is the only element.
My recursive case is when q and p are not equal. Here is the code below:
int maximum(int[] A, int p, int q) {
if (p == q) {
return A[p];
}
int k, l, max1, max2, max3;
k = p + Math.floor((q-p+2)/3);
l = k + Math.floor((q-p+2)/3);
max1 = maximum(A, p, k-1);
max2 = maximum(A, k, l-1);
max3 = maximum(A, l, q);
if (max1 >= max2 && max1 >= max3) {
return max1;
} else if (max2 >= max1 && max2 >= max3) {
return max2;
} else {
return max3;
}
}
I am not sure how I would go about this. From every example I have seen, I should be using n as my input size and the only parameter I am concerned with is my input size for this.
Would someone be able to explain a best approach to solve for just about any algorithm? I feel like this particular type is getting to me because I am used to seeing simpler recursive functions in the explanations behind recurrence relation.
In situations like these, I have seen the input size to the function considered not to be the literal input size (which may remain more or less the same at each recursive call) but the effective size of the data being considered. In your algorithm - much like in merge sort - the effective size of the data being considered does shrink at each recursive call: your high and low indices bound the part of the array you are looking at, so in a sense your effective input size does shrink. So, rather than treat cases such as these as multiple-variable recursions, I would expect a recursion such as T(n) = 3T(n/3) + O(1), or something of that nature.
Now, there are functions where it makes sense to have multiple independent variables... for instance, a function that takes in two arrays and narrows down at different rates, for instance. Graph algorithms often (though not always) treat vertices and edges as independent variables for complexity bounds, as a concrete case. In those cases, the independent variables are thought of as varying truly independently and cannot be meaningfully combined into a single measure of effective size. That is not necessarily the case in your function.
Related
This is a common interview question.
You have a stream of numbers coming in (let's say more than a million). The numbers are between [0-999]).
Implement a class which supports three methods in O(1)
* insert(int i);
* getMean();
* getMedian();
This is my code.
public class FindAverage {
private int[] store;
private long size;
private long total;
private int highestIndex;
private int lowestIndex;
public FindAverage() {
store = new int[1000];
size = 0;
total = 0;
highestIndex = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
lowestIndex = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
}
public void insert(int item) throws OutOfRangeException {
if(item < 0 || item > 999){
throw new OutOfRangeException();
}
store[item] ++;
size ++;
total += item;
highestIndex = Integer.max(highestIndex, item);
lowestIndex = Integer.min(lowestIndex, item);
}
public float getMean(){
return (float)total/size;
}
public float getMedian(){
}
}
I can't seem to think of a way to get the median in O(1) time.
Any help appreciated.
You have already done all the heavy lifting, by building the store counters. Together with the size value, it's easy enough.
You simply start iterating the store, summing up the counts until you reach half of size. That is your median value, if size is odd. For even size, you'll grab the two surrounding values and get their average.
Performance is O(1000/2) on average, which means O(1), since it doesn't depend on n, i.e. performance is unchanged even if n reaches into the billions.
Remember, O(1) doesn't mean instant, or even fast. As Wikipedia says it:
An algorithm is said to be constant time (also written as O(1) time) if the value of T(n) is bounded by a value that does not depend on the size of the input.
In your case, that bound is 1000.
The possible values that you can read are quite limited - just 1000. So you can think of implementing something like a counting sort - each time a number is input you increase the counter for that value.
To implement the median in constant time, you will need two numbers - the median index(i.e. the value of the median) and the number of values you've read and that are on the left(or right) of the median. I will just stop here hoping you will be able to figure out how to continue on your own.
EDIT(as pointed out in the comments): you already have the array with the sorted elements(stored) and you know the number of elements to the left of the median(size/2). You only need to glue the logic together. I would like to point out that if you use linear additional memory you won't need to iterate over the whole array on each insert.
For the general case, where range of elements is unlimited, such data structure does not exist based on any comparisons based algorithm, as it will allow O(n) sorting.
Proof: Assume such DS exist, let it be D.
Let A be input array for sorting. (Assume A.size() is even for simplicity, that can be relaxed pretty easily by adding a garbage element and discarding it later).
sort(A):
ds = new D()
for each x in A:
ds.add(x)
m1 = min(A) - 1
m2 = max(A) + 1
for (i=0; i < A.size(); i++):
ds.add(m1)
# at this point, ds.median() is smallest element in A
for (i = 0; i < A.size(); i++):
yield ds.median()
# Each two insertions advances median by 1
ds.add(m2)
ds.add(m2)
Claim 1: This algorithm runs in O(n).
Proof: Since we have constant operations of add() and median(), each of them is O(1) per iteration, and the number of iterations is linear - the complexity is linear.
Claim 2: The output is sorted(A).
Proof (guidelines): After inserting n times m1, the median is the smallest element in A. Each two insertions after it advances the median by one item, and since the advance is sorted, the total output is sorted.
Since the above algorithm sorts in O(n), and not possible under comparisons model, such DS does not exist.
QED.
We have the following Java method:
static void comb(int[] a, int i, int max) {
if(i < 0) {
for(int h = 0; h < a.length; h++)
System.out.print((char)(’a’+a[h]));
System.out.print("\n");
return;
}
for(int v = max; v >= i; v--) {
a[i] = v;
comb(a, i-1, v-1);
}
}
static void comb(int[] a, int n) { // a.length <= n
comb(a, a.length-1, n - 1);
return;
}
I have to determine an asymptotic estimate of the cost of the algorithm comb(int[],int) in function of the size of the input.
Since I'm just starting out with this type of exercises, I can not understand if in this case for input size means the size of the array a or some other method parameter.
Once identified the input size, how to proceed to determine the cost of having a multiple recursion?
Please, you can tell me the recurrence equation which determines the cost?
To determine the complexity of this algorithm you have to understand on which "work" you spend most of the time. Different kind of algorithm may depend different aspects of its parameters like input size, input type, input order, and so on. This one depends on array size and n.
Operations like System.out.print, (char), 'a' + a [h], a.length, h++ and so on are constant time operations and mostly depends on processor commands you will get after compilation and from a processor on which you will execute those instructions. But eventually they can be summed to constant say C. This constant will not depend on the algorithm and input size so you can safely omit it from estimation.
This algorithm has linearly dependent on the input size because it cycles, it's input array (with a cycle from h = 0 to last array element). And because n can be equal to array size (a.length = n - this is the worst case for this algorithm because it forces it execute recursion "array size" times) we should consider this input case in our estimation. And then we get another cycle with recursion which will execute method comb other n times.
So in the worst case we will get a O(n*n*C) number of execution steps for significantly large input size constant C will become insignificant so you can omit it from estimation. Thus final estimation will be O(n^2).
The original method being called is comb(int[] a, int n), and you know that a.length <= n. This means you can bound the running time of the method with a function of n, but you should think whether you can compute a better bound with a function of both n and a.length.
For example, if the method executes a.length * n steps and each step takes a constant amount of time, you can say that the method takes O(n^2) time, but O(a.length * n) would be more accurate (especially if n is much larger than a.length.
You should analyze how many times the method is called recursively, and how many operations occur in each call.
Basically for a given size of input array, how many steps does it take to compute the answer? If you double the input size, what happens to the number of steps? The key is to examine your loops and work out how many times they get executed.
so I have a question about an algorithm I'm supposed to "invent"/"find". It's an algorithm which calculates 2^(n) - 1 for Ө(n^n) and Ө(1) and Ө(n).
I was thinking for several hours but I couldn't find any solution for both tasks (the first ones while the last one was the easist imo, I posted the algorithm below). But I'm not skilled enough to "invent"/"find" one for a very slow and very fast algorithm.
So far my algorithms are (In Pseudocode):
The one for Ө(n)
int f(int n) {
int number = 2
if(n = 0) then return 0
if(n==1) then return 1
while(n > 1)
number = number * 2
n--
number = number - 1
return number
A simple one and kinda obvious one which uses recursion though I don't know how fast it is (It would be nice if someone could tell me that):
int f(int n) {
if(n==0) then return 0
if(n==1) then return 1
return 3*f(n-1) - 2*f(n-2)
}
Assuming n is not bounded by any constant (and output should not be a simple int, but a data type that can contain large integers to allow it) - there is no algorithm
to yield 2^n -1 in Ө(1), since the size of the output itself is
Ө(log(n)), so if we assume there is such algorithm, and let it
run in constant time and makes less than C operations, for n =
2^(C+1), you will require C+1 operations only to print the
output, which contradicts the assumption that C is the upper bound, so
there is no such algorithm.
For Ө(n^n), if you have a more efficient algorithm (Ө(n) for example), you can make a pointless loop that runs extra n^n iterations and do nothing important, it will make your algorithm Ө(n^n).
There is also a Ө(log(n)*M(logn)) algorithm, using exponent by squaring, and then simply reducing 1 from this value. In here M(x) is complexity of your multiplying operator for number containing x digits.
As commented by #kajacx, you can even improve (3) by applying Fourier transform
Something like:
HugeInt h = 1;
h = h << n;
h = h - 1;
Obviously HugeInt is pseudo-code for an integer type that can be of arbitrary size allowing for any n.
=====
Look at amit's answer instead!
the Ө(n^n) is too tricky for me, but a real Ө(1) algorithm on any "binary" architecture would be:
return n-1 bits filled with 1
(assuming your architecture can allocate and fill n-1 bits in constant time)
;)
Good evening, I have an array in java with n integer numbers. I want to check if there is a subset of size k of the entries that satisfies the condition:
The sum of those k entries is a multiple of m.
How may I do this as efficiently as possible? There are n!/k!(n-k)! subsets that I need to check.
You can use dynamic programming. The state is (prefix length, sum modulo m, number of elements in a subset). Transitions are obvious: we either add one more number(increasing the number of elements in a subset and computing new sum modulo m), or we just increase prefix lenght(not adding the current number). If you just need a yes/no answer, you can store only the last layer of values and apply bit optimizations to compute transitions faster. The time complexity is O(n * m * k), or about n * m * k / 64 operations with bit optimizations. The space complexity is O(m * k). It looks feasible for a few thousands of elements. By bit optimizations I mean using things like bitset in C++ that can perform an operation on a group of bits at the same time using bitwise operations.
I don't like this solution, but it may work for your needs
public boolean containsSubset( int[] a , int currentIndex, int currentSum, int depth, int divsor, int maxDepth){
//you could make a, maxDepth, and divisor static as well
//If maxDepthis equal to depth, then our subset has k elements, in addition the sum of
//elements must be divisible by out divsor, m
//If this condition is satisafied, then there exists a subset of size k whose sum is divisible by m
if(depth==maxDepth&¤tSum%divsor==0)
return true;
//If the depth is greater than or equal maxDepth, our subset has more than k elements, thus
//adding more elements can not satisfy the necessary conditions
//additionally we know that if it contains k elements and is divisible by m, it would've satisafied the above condition.
if(depth>=maxdepth)
return false;
//boolean to be returned, initialized to false because we have not found any sets yet
boolean ret = false;
//iterate through all remaining elements of our array
for (int i = currentIndex+1; i < a.length; i++){
//this may be an optimization or this line
//for (int i = currentIndex+1; i < a.length-maxDepth+depth; i++){
//by recursing, we add a[i] to our set we then use an or operation on all our subsets that could
//be constructed from the numbers we have so far so that if any of them satisfy our condition (return true)
//then the value of the variable ret will be true
ret |= containsSubset(a,i,currentSum+a[i],depth+1,divisor, maxDepth);
} //end for
//return the variable storing whether any sets of numbers that could be constructed from the numbers so far.
return ret;
}
Then invoke this method as such
//this invokes our method with "no numbers added to our subset so far" so it will try adding
// all combinations of other elements to determine if the condition is satisfied.
boolean answer = containsSubset(myArray,-1,0,0,m,k);
EDIT:
You could probably optimize this by taking everything modulo (%) m and deleting repeats. For examples with large values of n and/or k, but small values of m, this could be a pretty big optimization.
EDIT 2:
The above optimization I listed isn't helpful. You may need the repeats to get the correct information. My bad.
Happy Coding! Let me know if you have any questions!
If numbers have lower and upper bounds, it might be better to:
Iterate all multiples of n where lower_bound * k < multiple < upper_bound * k
Check if there is a subset with sum multiple in the array (see Subset Sum problem) using dynamic programming.
Complexity is O(k^2 * (lower_bound + upper_bound)^2). This approach can be optimized further, I believe with careful thinking.
Otherwise you can find all subsets of size k. Complexity is O(n!). Using backtracking (pseudocode-ish):
function find_subsets(array, k, index, current_subset):
if current_subset.size = k:
add current_subset to your solutions list
return
if index = array.size:
return
number := array[index]
add number to current_subset
find_subsets(array, k, index + 1, current_subset)
remove number from current_subset
find_subsets(array, k, index + 1, current_subset)
I've been doing some questions but answers not provided so I was wondering if my answers are correct
a) given that a[i....j] is an integer array with n elements and x is an integer
int front, back;
while(i <= j) {
front = (i + j) / 3;
back = 2 * (i + j) / 3;
if(a[front] == x)
return front;
if (a[back] ==x)
return back;
if(x < a[front])
j = front - 1;
else if(x > a[back])
i = back+1;
else {
j = back-1;
i = front + 1;
}
}
My answer would be O(1) but I have a feeling I'm wrong.
B)
public static void whatIs(int n) {
if (n > 0)
System.out.print(n+" "+whatIs(n/2)+" "+whatIs(n/2));
}
ans: I'm not sure whether is it log4n or logn since recursion happens twice.
A) Yes. O(1) is wrong. You are going around the loop a number of times that depends on i, j, x ... and the contents of the array. Work out how many times you go around the loop in the best and worst cases.
B) Simplify log(4*n) using log(a*b) -> log(a) + log(b) (basic high-school mathematics) and then apply the definition of big O.
But that isn't the right answer either. Once again, you should go back to first principles and count the number of times that the method gets called for a given value of the parameter n. And do a proof by induction.
Both answers are incorrect.
In the first example on each iteration either you find the number or you shrink the length of the interval by 1/3. I.e. if the length used to be n you make it (2/3)*n. Worst case you find x on the last iteration - when the length of the interval is 1. So just like with binary search the complexity is calculated via a log: the complexity is O(log3/2(n)) and this in fact is simply O(log(n))
In the second example for a given number n you perform twice the number of operations needed for n/2. Start from n = 0 and n = 1 and use induction to prove the complexity is in fact O(n).
Hope this helps.
A) This algorithm seems similar to the Golden section search. When analyzing complexity, it's sometimes easier to imagine what would happen if we would extend the data structure, rather than contracting it. Think of it like this: Every loop removes a third from the search interval. That means, that if we know exactly how long time it takes for a certain length, we could add 50% more if we're allowed to loop once more – an exponential growth. Thus, the search algorithm must have complexity O(log n).
B) Every time we add a "layer" of function calls, we need to double the number of them (since the function always calls itself twice). In other words, given a certain length and time consumption, doubling n also requires twice as many function calls in the last layer. The algorithm is O(n).