For simplicity, let's say the number is between 1 and n. Is there a generic formula that gives us the number that results in the maximum number of binary search iterations?
I always have to write things about by hand, but I feel there should be an analytical form that is a function of n.
Related
I am trying to figure out the number of comparisons that binary search does on an array of a given size in the worst case.
Let's say there is an array A with 123,456 elements (or any other number). Binary search is applied to find some element E. The comparison is to determine whether A[i] = E. How many times would this comparison be executed in the worst case?
According to this post, the number of worst case comparisons is 2logn+1.
Result: 50
According to this post, the max. number of binary search comparisons is log2(n+1).
Result: 25
According to this post, the number of comparisons is 2logn-1.
Result: 50
I am confused by the different answers. Can anyone tell me which one is correct and how I can determine the maximum number of comparisons in the worst case?
According to this Wiki page:
In the worst case, binary search makes floor(log2(n)+1) iterations of the comparison loop, where the floor notation denotes the floor function that yields the greatest integer less than or equal to the argument, and log2 is the binary logarithm. This is because the worst case is reached when the search reaches the deepest level of the tree, and there are always floor(log2(n)+1) levels in the tree for any binary search.
Also, it's not enough to consider only comparisons A[i] = E. The binary search also includes comparisons E <= A[mid], where the mid is the midpoint of the index interval.
I want something similar to this, two strings then the percentage match between the two, example below
string1 string2 percentage match
cali cali 100%
You'd have to write Levenstein distance function for that. Algorithm calculates number of insert+delete+substitute operations required to turn one string to another. In worst case scenario number of operations will be equal to length of longer string, so you could easily calculate 0%-100% similarity. There are T-SQL implementations available online, e.g. here (I didn't test it).
Given a bunch of numbers, I am trying to determine whether there is a "clump" anywhere where numbers are very densely packed.
To make things more precise, I thought I'd ask a more specific problem: given a set of numbers, I would like to determine whether there is a subset of size n which has a standard deviation <= s. If there are many such subsets, I'd like to find the subset with the lowest standard deviation.
So question #1 : does this formal problem definition effectively capture the intuitive concept of a "clump" of densely packed numbers?
EDIT: I don't actually care about determining which numbers belong to this "clump", I'm much more interested in determining where the clump is centred, which is why I think that specifying n in advance is okay. But feel free to correct me!
And question #2 : assuming it does, what is the best way to go about implementing something like this (in particular, I want a solution with lowest time complexity)? So far I think I have a solution that runs in n log n:
First, note that the lowest-standard-deviation-possessing subset of a given size must consist of consecutive numbers. So step 1 is sort the numbers (this is n log n)
Second, take the first n numbers and compute their standard deviation. If our array of numbers is 0-based, then the first n numbers are [0, n-1]. To get standard deviation, compute s1 and s2 as follows:
s1 = sum of numbers
s2 = sum of squares of numbers
Then, wikipedia says that the standard deviation is sqrt(n*s2 - s1^2)/n. Record this value as the highest standard deviation seen so far.
Find the standard deviation of [1, n], [2, n+1], [3, n+2] ... until you hit the the last n numbers. To do each computation takes only constant time if you keep track of s1 and s2 running totals: for example, to get std dev of [1, n], just subtract the 0th element from the s1 and s2 totals and add the nth element, then recalculate standard deviation. This means that the entire standard deviation calculating portion of the algorithm takes linear time.
So total time complexity n log n.
Is my assessment right? Is there a better way to do this? I really need this to run fast on fairly large sets, so the faster the better! Space is less of an issue (I think).
Having been working recently on a similar problem, both the definition of the clumps and the proposed implementation seem reasonable.
Another reasonable definition would be to find the minimum of all the ranges of n numbers. Thus, given that the list of numbers x is sorted, one would just find the minimum of x[n]-x[1], x[n+1]-x[2], etc. This would be slightly quicker than finding the standard deviation because it would avoid the multiplications and square roots. Indeed, you can avoid the square roots even when looking for the lowest standard deviation by finding the minimum variance (the square of the standard deviation), rather than the sd itself.
A caution would be that the location of the biggest clump might be quite sensitive to the choice of n. If there is an a priori reason to select a particular n, that won't be a problem. If not, however, it might require some experimentation to select the value of n that fairly reliably finds the clumps you are looking for, whether you are selecting by range or by standard deviation. Some ideas on this can be found in Chapter 6 of the online book ABC of EDA.
I have read that it has something to do with time, also you get from including time.h, so I assumed that much, but how does it work exactly? Also, does it have any tendencies towards odd or even numbers or something like that? And finally is there something with better distribution in the C standard library or the Foundation framework?
Briefly:
You use time.h to get a seed, which is an initial random number. C then does a bunch of operations on this number to get the next random number, then operations on that one to get the next, then... you get the picture.
rand() is able to touch on every possible integer. It will not prefer even or odd numbers regardless of the input seed, happily. Still, it has limits - it repeats itself relatively quickly, and in almost every implementation only gives numbers up to 32767.
C does not have another built-in random number generator. If you need a real tough one, there are many packages available online, but the Mersenne Twister algorithm is probably the most popular pick.
Now, if you are interested on the reasons why the above is true, here are the gory details on how rand() works:
rand() is what's called a "linear congruential generator." This means that it employs an equation of the form:
xn+1 = (*a****xn + ***b*) mod m
where xn is the nth random number, and a and b are some predetermined integers. The arithmetic is performed modulo m, with m usually 232 depending on the machine, so that only the lowest 32 bits are kept in the calculation of xn+1.
In English, then, the idea is this: To get the next random number, multiply the last random number by something, add a number to it, and then take the last few digits.
A few limitations are quickly apparent:
First, you need a starting random number. This is the "seed" of your random number generator, and this is where you've heard of time.h being used. Since we want a really random number, it is common practice to ask the system what time it is (in integer form) and use this as the first "random number." Also, this explains why using the same seed twice will always give exactly the same sequence of random numbers. This sounds bad, but is actually useful, since debugging is a lot easier when you control the inputs to your program
Second, a and b have to be chosen very, very carefully or you'll get some disastrous results. Fortunately, the equation for a linear congruential generator is simple enough that the math has been worked out in some detail. It turns out that choosing an a which satisfies *a***mod8 = 5 together with ***b* = 1 will insure that all m integers are equally likely, independent of choice of seed. You also want a value of a that is really big, so that every time you multiply it by xn you trigger a the modulo and chop off a lot of digits, or else many numbers in a row will just be multiples of each other. As a result, two common values of a (for example) are 1566083941 and 1812433253 according to Knuth. The GNU C library happens to use a=1103515245 and b=12345. A list of values for lots of implementations is available at the wikipedia page for LCGs.
Third, the linear congruential generator will actually repeat itself because of that modulo. This gets to be some pretty heady math, but the result of it all is happily very simple: The sequence will repeat itself after m numbers of have been generated. In most cases, this means that your random number generator will repeat every 232 cycles. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for many applications. If you are doing serious numerical work with Monte Carlo simulations, this number is hopelessly inadequate.
A fourth much less obvious problem is that the numbers are actually not really random. They have a funny sort of correlation. If you take three consecutive integers, (x, y, z), from an LCG with some value of a and m, those three points will always fall on the lattice of points generated by all linear combinations of the three points (1, a, a2), (0, m, 0), (0, 0, m). This is known as Marsaglia's Theorem, and if you don't understand it, that's okay. All it means is this: Triplets of random numbers from an LCG will show correlations at some deep, deep level. Usually it's too deep for you or I to notice, but its there. It's possible to even reconstruct the first number in a "random" sequence of three numbers if you are given the second and third! This is not good for cryptography at all.
The good part is that LCGs like rand() are very, very low footprint. It typically requires only 32 bits to retain state, which is really nice. It's also very fast, requiring very few operations. These make it good for noncritical embedded systems, video games, casual applications, stuff like that.
PRNGs are a fascinating topic. Wikipedia is always a good place to go if you are hungry to learn more on the history or the various implementations that are around today.
rand returns numbers generated by a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). The sequence of numbers it returns is deterministic, based on the value with which the PRNG was initialized (by calling srand).
The numbers should be distributed such that they appear somewhat random, so, for example, odd and even numbers should be returned at roughly the same frequency. The actual implementation of the random number generator is left unspecified, so the actual behavior is specific to the implementation.
The important thing to remember is that rand does not return random numbers; it returns pseudo-random numbers, and the values it returns are determined by the seed value and the number of times rand has been called. This behavior is fine for many use cases, but is not appropriate for others (for example, rand would not be appropriate for use in many cryptographic applications).
How does rand() work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator
I have read that it has something to
do with time, also you get from
including time.h
rand() has nothing at all to do with the time. However, it's very common to use time() to obtain the "seed" for the PRNG so that you get different "random" numbers each time your program is run.
Also, does it have any tendencies
towards odd or even numbers or
something like that?
Depends on the exact method used. There's one popular implementation of rand() that alternates between odd and even numbers. So avoid writing code like rand() % 2 that depends on the lowest bit being random.
A start-step-stop code is a data compression technique that is used to compress number that are relatively small.
The code works as follows: It has three parameters, start, step and stop. Start determines the amount of bits used to compute the first few numbers. Step determines how many bits to add to the encoding when we run out and stop determines the maximum amount of bits used to encode a number.
So the length of an encoding is given by l = start + step * i.
The "i" value of a particular code is encoded using unary. That is, a number of 1 bits followed by a terminating 0 bit. If we have reached stop then we can drop the terminating 0 bit. If i is zero we only write out the 0 bit.
So a (1, 2, 5) start-step-stop code would work as follows:
Value 0, encoded as: 0 0
Value 1, encoded as: 0 1
Value 2, encoded as: 10 000
Value 9, encoded as: 10 111
Value 10, encoded as: 11 00000
Value 41, encoded as: 11 11111
So, given a file containing several numbers, how can we compute the optimal start-step-stop codes for that file? The optimal parameters are defined as those that will result in the greatest compression ratio.
These "start-step-stop" codes looks like a different way of calling Huffman codes. See the basic technique for an outline of the pseudo-code for calculating them.
Essentially this is what the algorithm does:
Before you start the Huffman encoding you need to gather the statistics of each symbol you'll be compressing (Their total frequency in the file to compress).
After you have that you create a binary tree using that info such that the most frequently used symbols are at the top of the tree (and thus use less bits) and such that no encoding has a prefix code. Since if an encoding has a common prefix there could be ambiguities decompressing.
At the end of the Huffman encoding your start value will be depth of the shallowest leaf node, your step will always be 1 (logically this makes sense, why would you force more bits than you need, just add one at a time,) and your stop value will be the depth of the deepest leaf node.
If the frequency stats aren't sorted it will take O(nlog n) to do, if they are sorted by frequency it can be done in O(n).
Huffman codes are guaranteed to have the best average compression for this type of encoding:
Huffman was able to design the most
efficient compression method of this
type: no other mapping of individual
source symbols to unique strings of
bits will produce a smaller average
output size when the actual symbol
frequencies agree with those used to
create the code.
This should help you implement the ideal solution to your problem.
Edit: Though similar, this isn't what the OP was looking for.
This academic paper by the creator of these codes describes a generalization of start-step-stop codes, start-stop codes. However, the author briefly describes how to get optimal start-step-stop near the end of section 2. It involves using a statistical random variable, or brute-force funding the best combination. Without any prior knowledge of the file the algorithm is O((log n)^3).
Hope this helps.
The approach I used was a simple brute force solution. The algorithm followed these basic steps:
Count the frequency of each number in the file. In the same pass, compute the total amount of numbers in the file and determine the greatest number as maxNumber.
Compute the probability of each number as its frequency divided by the total amount of numbers in the file.
Determine "optimalStop" as equal to log2(maxNumber). This is the ideal number of bits that should be used to represent maxNumber as in Shannon information theory and therefore a reasonable estimate of the optimal maximum amount of bits used in the encoding of a particular number.
For every "start" value from 1 to "optimalStop" repeat step 5 - 7:
For every "step" value from 1 to ("optimalStop" - "start") / 2, repeat step 6 & 7:
Calculate the "stop" value closest to "optimalStop" that satisfies stop = start + step * i for some integer i.
Compute the average number of bits that would be used by this encoding. This can be calculated as each number's probability multiplied by its bit length in the given encoding.
Pick the encoding with the lowest average number of bits.