The following is the inside of a method for collision detection while inserting into my own hash table. I'm working with small test numbers and trying to get my logic right, the variable hash is set to 0 and the table.length is 10.
else
{
//problem here
int initial=(hash-1)%table.length;
while (table[hash]!=null)
{
hash+=1;
System.out.println(initial);
if (hash==table.length)
{
hash=0;
}
if (hash==initial)
{
System.out.println("FULL!");
break;
}
The variable initial needs to be the index BEFORE whatever my current one is (hash). My problem is if hash is 0, initial needs to be set to 9. I thought this would work but I'm getting -1 when hash is set to 0 for example. The first IF statement loops back to the first index if you for example started in the middle at 5 or something, the second one is for for when you've checked all indexes and they're all full.
Since you use %, there is no risk of overflow, so you can just change the line to
int initial = (hash - 1 + table.length) % table.length;
to get around this problem.
Related
I have been struggling to solve an array problem with linear time,
The problem is:
Assuming we are given an array A [1...n] write an algorithm that return true if:
There are two numbers in the array x,y that have the following:
x < y
x repeats more than n/3 times
y repeats more than n/4 times
I have tried to write the following java program to do so assuming we have a sorted array but I don't think it is the best implementation.
public static boolean solutionManma(){
int [] arr = {2,2,2,3,3,3};
int n = arr.length;
int xCount = 1;
int yCount = 1;
int maxXcount= xCount,maxYCount = yCount;
int currX = arr[0];
int currY = arr[n-1];
for(int i = 1; i < n-2;i++){
int right = arr[n-2-i+1];
int left = arr[i];
if(currX == left){
xCount++;
}
else{
maxXcount = Math.max(xCount,maxXcount);
xCount = 1;
currX = left;
}
if(currY == right){
yCount++;
}
else {
maxYCount = Math.max(yCount,maxYCount);
yCount = 1;
currY = right;
}
}
return (maxXcount > n/3 && maxYCount > n/4);
}
If anyone has an algorithm idea for this kind of issue (preferably O(n)) I would much appreciate it because I got stuck with this one.
The key part of this problem is to find in linear time and constant space the values which occur more than n/4 times. (Note: the text of your question says "more than" and the title says "at least". Those are not the same condition. This answer is based on the text of your question.)
There are at most three values which occur more than n/4 times, and a list of such values must also include any value which occurs more than n/3 times.
The algorithm we'll use returns a list of up to three values. It only guarantees that all values which satisfy the condition are in the list it returns. The list might include other values, and it does not provide any information about the precise frequencies.
So a second pass is necessary, which scans the vector a second time counting the occurrences of each of the three values returned. Once you have the three counts, it's simple to check whether the smallest value which occurs more than n/3 times (if any) is less than the largest value which occurs more than n/4 times.
To construct the list of candidates, we use a generalisation of the Boyer-Moore majority vote algorithm, which finds a value which occurs more than n/2 times. The generalisation, published in 1982 by J. Misra and D. Gries, uses k-1 counters, each possibly associated with a value, to identify values which might occur more than 1/k times. In this case, k is 4 and so we need three counters.
Initially, all of the counters are 0 and are not associated with any value. Then for each value in the array, we do the following:
If there is a counter associated with that value, we increment it.
If no counter is associated with that value but some counter is at 0, we associate that counter with the value and increment its count to 1.
Otherwise, we decrement every counter's count.
Once all the values have been processed, the values associated with counters with positive counts are the candidate values.
For a general implementation where k is not known in advance, it would be possible to use a hash-table or other key-value map to identify values with counts. But in this case, since it is known that k is a small constant, we can just use a simple vector of three value-count pairs, making this algorithm O(n) time and O(1) space.
I will suggest the following solution, using the following assumption:
In an array of length n there will be at most n different numbers
The key feature will be to count the frequency of occurance for each different input using a histogram with n bins, meaning O(n) space. The algorithm will be as follows:
create a histogram vector with n bins, initialized to zeros
for index ii in the length of the input array a
2.1. Increase the value: hist[a[ii]] +=1
set found_x and found_y to False
for the iith bin in the histogram, check:
4.1. if found_x == False
4.1.1. if hist[ii] > n/3, set found_x = True and set x = ii
4.2. else if found_y == False
4.2.1. if hist[ii] > n/4, set y = ii and return x, y
Explanation
In the first run over the array you document the occurance frequency of all the numbers. In the run over the histogram array, which also has a length of n, you check the occurrence. First you check if there is a number that occurred more than n/3 times and if there is, for the rest of the numbers (by default larger than x due to the documentation in the histogram) you check if there is another number which occurred more than n/4 times. if there is, you return the found x and y and if there isn't you simply return not found after covering all the bins in the histogram.
As far as time complexity, you goover the input array once and you go over the histogram with the same length once, therefore the time complexity is O(n) is requested.
i am writing the function to check if the given value is included in the matrix in . This matrix has the following properties:
•Integers in each row are sorted in ascending from left to right.
•Integers in each column are sorted in ascending from top to bottom
public static boolean searchMatrix(int target, int[][] matrix)
{
for(int i = 0;i <= matrix[0].length;i++)
{
for (int j=i; j<matrix.length;j++)
{
if(target == matrix[i][j])
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
i want to know weather this program has time complexity of O(N).
if not what changes should i make to get into O(N).
I think the search can be done in linear time. Consider the following 4×4 matrix as a visual:
1 2 4 6
2 3 5 7 ascending from left to right
3 4 6 8 and from top to bottom
4 5 6 9
If we were searching for the value 5 we could begin in the upper left, and then walk to the right until we have either found the value, or encountered a number which is greater than the target of 5. In this case, we hit 6. Then, we can rollback to 4, and advance down to a higher row. It is guaranteed that every previous value in the first row is less than the target and that every value in the next row from that column onwards is greater than the value on the first row.
This is a roughly linear approach. A good analogy would be walking around the perimeter of a mountain, looking for a certain elevation. If at each spot we either don't find the height we want, or find only points too high, we keep walking.
The way you have it written (brute force computation) has a worst case time complexity of O(N^2). Since you say that the arrays are sorted, you can instead implement binary search which will have a worst case time complexity of N(2*log(N)).
Assuming a n x m matrix, your algorithm is O(n * m), because it (potentially) iterates all rows and columns (ie all elements).
However, there exists an algorithm that is O(log(m + n)).
Because this is for an on-line coding interview (I am psychic), I will give you hints only:
Given elements at coordinate (x, y), what can know about where the target might be?
What could you do if you treated x and y separately?
you say the matrix is sorted ,may you can use binary search to find the target . and use two individual one layer loop , firstly search row ,then column.it's o(N/2).
As stated your algorithm is O(N*M) or O(N^2) for a square matrix.
You can do it with a single loop:
Basically starting from the top right you check the cell if the number is too big move left if the number is too small move down. If you fall off the edge on either side the number's not there.
boolean searchMatrix(int target, int[][] mat)
{
int i = 0, j = mat[0].length;
while (i < mat.length && j >= 0)
{
if (mat[i][j] == target)
{
return true;
}
else if (mat[i][j] < target)
{
i++;
}
else
{
j--;
}
}
return false;
}
If i have 1 core integers elements in arrays which having only 0,1 in random manner. & i want to sort this array without using existing algorithm. or sorting method and using minimal iteration.
How i can do that..
please help me out.
Maybe you can count the number of 0 and 1 and create a new array with the same amount of 0 and 1 but choosing the order you add them.
method 1:count all 0's and then set it from the front and then set 1's size - count(0) times.
method 2: Start from both ends of the array and swap 1s from left to 0s in right until reach the middle of the array.
while (begin < end) {
// If find 0 at left, keep moving
if (0 == toSort[begin]) {
begin++;
}
// if a 1 occurs at left, move from right until find a zero
else if (1 == toSort[end]) {
end--;
}
// Here we found a 1 at left and 0 at right, so swap
else {
toSort[begin] = 0;
toSort[end] = 1;
}
}
time complexity: O(n).
I know the rationale behind nested loops, but this one just make me confused about the reason it wants to reveal:
public static LinkedList LinkedSort(LinkedList list)
{
for(int k = 1; k < list.size(); k++)
for(int i = 0; i < list.size() - k; i++)
{
if(((Birth)list.get(i)).compareTo(((Birth)list.get(i + 1)))>0)
{
Birth birth = (Birth)list.get(i);
list.set( i, (Birth)list.get( i + 1));
list.set(i + 1, birth);
}
}
return list;
}
Why if i is bigger then i + 1, then swap i and i + 1? I know for this coding, i + 1 equals to k, but then from my view, it is impossible for i greater then k, am i right? And what the run result will be looking like? I'm quite confused what this coding wants to tell me， hope you guys can help me clarify my doubts, thank you.
This method implements a bubble sort. It reorders the elements in the list in ascending order. The exact data to be ordered by is not revealed in this code, the actual comparison is done in Birth#compare.
Lets have a look at the inner loop first. It does the actual sorting. The inner loop iterates over the list, and compares the element at position 0 to the element at position 1, then the element at position 1 to the element at position 2 etc. Each time, if the lower element is larger than the higher one, they are swapped.
After the first full run of the inner loop the largest value in the list now sits at the end of the list, since it was always larger than the the value it was compared to, and was always swapped. (try it with some numbers on paper to see what happens)
The inner loop now has to run again. It can ignore the last element, since we already know it contains the largest value. After the second run the second largest value is sitting the the second-to-last position.
This has to be repeated until the whole list is sorted.
This is what the outer loop is doing. It runs the inner loop for the exact number of times to make sure the list is sorted. It also gives the inner loop the last position it has to compare to ignore the part already sorted. This is just an optimization, the inner loop could just ignore k like this:
for(int i = 0; i < list.size() - 1; i++)
This would give the same result, but would take longer since the inner loop would needlessly compare the already sorted values at the end of the list every time.
Example: you have a list of numbers which you want to sort ascendingly:
4 2 3 1
The first iteration do these swap operations: swap(4, 2), swap(4, 3), swap(4, 1). The intermediate result after the 1st iteration is 2 3 1 4. In other words, we were able to determine which number is the greatest one and we don't need to iterate over the last item of the intermediate result.
In the second iteration, we determine the 2nd greatest number with operations: swap(3, 1). The intermediate result looks then 2 1 3 4.
And the end of the 3rd iteration, we have a sorted list.
I'm trying to use a bubble sort to alphabetize an array that I've read into a program. The code compiles without error but I get an Array Index Out Of Bounds Exception on my 'if' construct when I try to run the program. I have initialized int i to 0 to account for the first index of the array so I think my error is elsewhere. I'm not asking anyone to write code for me, just maybe a point in the right direction. Thanks for any help.
public static String[] bubbleSort(String[] inL)
{
String temp;
int i = 0, passNum;
for(passNum = 1; passNum <= (inL.length); i++) // controls passes through bubble sort
{
if(inL[i].compareToIgnoreCase(inL[i + 1]) < 0)
{
temp = inL[i];
inL[i] = inL[i + 1];
inL[i + 1] = temp;
}
}
return inL; // returns sorted array
} // end bubbleSort method
You compare passNum instead of i against the length of the array. Since passNum is never modified, the loop condition is always true, and i gets incremented until it exceeds the range of the array.
Even if this particular issue is resolved, you may still run into problems with off-by-one errors with your current implementation. Consider whether you should compare i against inL.length - 1.
You never increment passNum so i continues incrementing forever. Also, array indexing in Java is based at 0. That means that the largest valid index is inL.length - 1. Since the body of your loop accesses inL[i+1], you should arrange your code so that i never exceeds inL.length - 2. At a minimum, you should change <= to < in the for loop termination test. (However, the logic of your comparison and incrementing escapes me; you need to fix that as well.)
Array.length stores the total length of an array, starting counting at 1.
The first index in an array however is 0, meaning that the last index is length-1.
adjust your check in your for-loop to fix the error
Your problem is the passNum <= (inL.length) it should be passNum < (inL.length) due to 0 being the first index of an array in java