Following code is trying to remove duplicates from a sorted array by overwriting repeated elements. Although it has nested for loops, its complexity is definitely less than O(n^2). What will be the complexity of following code?
int n = arr.length;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
if(arr[i]==arr[i+1]){
for(int j=i+1;j<n-1;j++){
arr[j]=arr[j+1];
}
n--; i--;
}
}
Lets start from first position. Its for sure not duplicate, so you don't do any moving. Then we move to second position. It can be duplicate from first position value, and then, it may not be. If it is, then you have to move it to the end, so, for first 2 positions, you have two scenarios, one is just moving through array (its not duplicate), second one is moving element to the end of array, which require n-2 operations of arr[j]=arr[j+1].
Now, in case we moved third value to second position, we are still on it (i-- part). It can be duplicate of first value, and maybe it isn't. For first option you have to take n-3 (since you did n--, so you move it from position 2 to position n-1) operations of arr[j]=arr[j+1]. Now, if second value was not duplicate of first value (so you didn't do i-- and n--), but third value is duplicate of one of first two values, you still have to do n-3 operations of arr[j]=arr[j+1] (from position 3 to position n). So, number of operations stay the same in each case.
So, we have a pattern here: n-2 + n-3 + n -4 + ... + 3 + 2 + 1 of moving things around. This sum is:
n-2 + n-3 + n -4 + ... + 3 + 2 + 1 = n(n+1)/2 - n - n + 1
So based on this, since first part is moving through array, which is O(n), complexity of this algorithm is O(n^2). Worst case scenarios is having all same values in array.
Now, there is a better way. Place all values in Set. This require moving through array (O(n)), and checking if something is in Set, which is O(1). Then take all results from Set, and place them in array, which is O(n). So, complexity of such algorithm is O(n).
Related
A person claims that they can improve InsertionSort by the following argument. In the innermost loop of InsertionSort, instead of looping over all entries in the already sorted array in order to insert the j’th observed element, simply perform BinarySearch in order to sandwich the j’th element in its correct position in the list A[1, ... , j−1]. This person claims that their resulting insertion sort is asymptotically as good as mergesort in the worst case scenario. True or False and why? Circle the one correct answer from the below:
a. True: In this version, the while loop will iterate log(n), but in each such iteration elements in the left side of the list have to be shifted to allow room for the key to propagate downwards across the median elements and so this shift will still require log(n) in the worst case scenario. Adding up, Insertion Sort will significantly improve in this case to continue to require n log(n) in the worst case scenario like mergesort.
b. False: In this version, the while loop will iterate log(n), but in each such iteration elements in the left side of the list have to be shifted to allow room for the key to propagate downwards and so this shift will still require n in the worst case scenario. Adding up, Insertion Sort will continue to require n² in the worst case scenario which is orders of magnitude worse than mergesort.
c. False: In this version, the while loop will iterate n, but in each such iteration elements in the left side of the list have to be shifted to allow room for the key to propagate downwards and so this shift will still require log(n) in the worst case scenario. Adding up, Insertion Sort will continue to require n log(n) in the worst case scenario which is orders of magnitude worse than mergesort.
d. True: In this version, the while loop will iterate log(n), but in each such iteration elements in the left side of the list have to be shifted to allow room for the key to propagate downwards and so this shift will still require n in the worst case scenario. Adding up, Insertion Sort will continue to require n log(n) in the worst case scenario which is orders of magnitude worse than mergesort.
b is correct, with some assumptions about compiler optimizations.
Consider a reverse sorted array,
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
and that insertion sort is half done so it is
5 6 7 8 4 3 2 1
The next step:
normal insertion sort sequence assuming most recent value read kept in register:
t = a[4] = 4 1 read
compare t and a[3] 1 read
a[4] = a[3] = 8 1 write
compare t and a[2] 1 read
a[3] = a[2] = 7 1 write
compare t and a[1] 1 read
a[2] = a[1] = 6 1 write
compare t and a[0] 1 read
a[1] = a[0] = 5 1 write
a[0] = t = 4 1 write
---------------
5 read 5 write
binary search
t = a[4] 1 read
compare t and a[1] 1 read
compare t and a[0] 1 read
a[4] = a[3] 1 read 1 write
a[3] = a[2] 1 read 1 write
a[2] = a[1] 1 read 1 write
a[1] = a[0] 1 read 1 write
a[0] = t 1 write
----------------
7 read 5 write
If a compiler re-read data with normal insertion sort it would be
9 read 5 write
In which case the binary search would save some time.
The expected answer to this question is b), but the explanation is not precise enough:
locating the position where to insert the j-th element indeed requires log(j) comparisons instead of j comparisons for regular Insertion Sort.
inserting the elements requires j element moves in the worst case for both implementations (reverse sorted array).
Summing these over the whole array produces:
n log(n) comparisons for this modified Insertion Sort idea in all cases vs: n2 comparisons in the worst case (already sorted array) for the classic implementation.
n2 element moves in the worst case in both implementations (reverse sorted array).
note that in the classic implementation the sum of the number of comparisons and element moves is constant.
Merge Sort on the other hand uses approximately n log(n) comparisons and n log(n) element moves in all cases.
Therefore the claim the resulting insertion sort is asymptotically as good as mergesort in the worst case scenario is False, indeed because the modified Insertion Sort method still performs n2 element moves in the worst case, which is asymptotically much worse than n log(n) moves.
Note however that depending on the relative cost of comparisons and element moves, the performance of this modified Insertion Sort approach may be much better than the classic implementation, for example sorting an array of string pointers containing URLs to the same site, the cost of comparing strings with a long initial substring is much greater than moving a single pointer.
Given an integer n such that (1<=n<=10^18)
We need to calculate f(1)+f(2)+f(3)+f(4)+....+f(n).
f(x) is given as :-
Say, x = 1112222333,
then f(x)=1002000300.
Whenever we see a contiguous subsequence of same numbers, we replace it with the first number and zeroes all behind it.
Formally, f(x) = Sum over all (first element of the contiguous subsequence * 10^i ), where i is the index of first element from left of a particular contiguous subsequence.
f(x)=1*10^9 + 2*10^6 + 3*10^2 = 1002000300.
In, x=1112222333,
Element at index '9':-1
and so on...
We follow zero based indexing :-)
For, x=1234.
Element at index-'0':-4,element at index -'1':3,element at index '2':-2,element at index 3:-1
How to calculate f(1)+f(2)+f(3)+....+f(n)?
I want to generate an algorithm which calculates this sum efficiently.
There is nothing to calculate.
Multiplying each position in the array od numbers will yeild thebsame number.
So all you want to do is end up with 0s on a repeated number
IE lets populate some static values in an array in psuedo code
$As[1]='0'
$As[2]='00'
$As[3]='000'
...etc
$As[18]='000000000000000000'```
these are the "results" of 10^index
Given a value n of `1234`
```1&000 + 2&00 +3 & 0 + 4```
Results in `1234`
So, if you are putting this on a chip, then probably your most efficient method is to do a bitwise XOR between each register and the next up the line as a single operation
Then you will have 0s in all the spots you care about, and just retrive the values in the registers with a 1
In code, I think it would be most efficient to do the following
```$n = arbitrary value 11223334
$x=$n*10
$zeros=($x-$n)/10```
Okay yeah we can just do bit shifting to get a value like 100200300400 etc.
To approach this problem, it could help to begin with one digit numbers and see what sum you get.
I mean like this:
Let's say, we define , then we have:
F(1)= 45 # =10*9/2 by Euler's sum formula
F(2)= F(1)*9 + F(1)*100 # F(1)*9 is the part that comes from the last digit
# because for each of the 10 possible digits in the
# first position, we have 9 digits in the last
# because both can't be equal and so one out of ten
# becomse zero. F(1)*100 comes from the leading digit
# which is multiplied by 100 (10 because we add the
# second digit and another factor of 10 because we
# get the digit ten times in that position)
If you now continue with this scheme, for k>=1 in general you get
F(k+1)= F(k)*100+10^(k-1)*45*9
The rest is probably straightforward.
Can you tell me, which Hackerrank task this is? I guess one of the Project Euler tasks right?
I am trying to rank these functions — 2n, n100, (n + 1)2, n·lg(n), 100n, n!, lg(n), and n99 + n98 — so that each function is the big-O of the next function, but I do not know a method of determining if one function is the big-O of another. I'd really appreciate if someone could explain how I would go about doing this.
Assuming you have some programming background. Say you have below code:
void SomeMethod(int x)
{
for(int i = 0; i< x; i++)
{
// Do Some Work
}
}
Notice that the loop runs for x iterations. Generalizing, we say that you will get the solution after N iterations (where N will be the value of x ex: number of items in array/input etc).
so This type of implementation/algorithm is said to have Time Complexity of Order of N written as O(n)
Similarly, a Nested For (2 Loops) is O(n-squared) => O(n^2)
If you have Binary decisions made and you reduce possibilities into halves and pick only one half for solution. Then complexity is O(log n)
Found this link to be interesting.
For: Himanshu
While the Link explains how log(base2)N complexity comes into picture very well, Lets me put the same in my words.
Suppose you have a Pre-Sorted List like:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Now, you have been asked to Find whether 10 exists in the list. The first solution that comes to mind is Loop through the list and Find it. Which means O(n). Can it be made better?
Approach 1:
As we know that List of already sorted in ascending order So:
Break list at center (say at 5).
Compare the value of Center (5) with the Search Value (10).
If Center Value == Search Value => Item Found
If Center < Search Value => Do above steps for Right Half of the List
If Center > Search Value => Do above steps for Left Half of the List
For this simple example we will find 10 after doing 3 or 4 breaks (at: 5 then 8 then 9) (depending on how you implement)
That means For N = 10 Items - Search time was 3 (or 4). Putting some mathematics over here;
2^3 + 2 = 10 for simplicity sake lets say
2^3 = 10 (nearly equals --- this is just to do simple Logarithms base 2)
This can be re-written as:
Log-Base-2 10 = 3 (again nearly)
We know 10 was number of items & 3 was the number of breaks/lookup we had to do to find item. It Becomes
log N = K
That is the Complexity of the alogorithm above. O(log N)
Generally when a loop is nested we multiply the values as O(outerloop max value * innerloop max value) n so on. egfor (i to n){ for(j to k){}} here meaning if youll say for i=1 j=1 to k i.e. 1 * k next i=2,j=1 to k so i.e. the O(max(i)*max(j)) implies O(n*k).. Further, if you want to find order you need to recall basic operations with logarithmic usage like O(n+n(addition)) <O(n*n(multiplication)) for log it minimizes the value in it saying O(log n) <O(n) <O(n+n(addition)) <O(n*n(multiplication)) and so on. By this way you can acheive with other functions as well.
Approach should be better first generalised the equation for calculating time complexity. liken! =n*(n-1)*(n-2)*..n-(n-1)so somewhere O(nk) would be generalised formated worst case complexity like this way you can compare if k=2 then O(nk) =O(n*n)
Hi could anyone explain why the first one is True and second one is False?
First loop , number of times the loop gets executed is k times,
Where for a given n, i takes values 1,2,4,......less than n.
2 ^ k <= n
Or, k <= log(n).
Which implies , k the number of times the first loop gets executed is log(n), that is time complexity here is O(log(n)).
Second loop does not get executed based on p as p is not used in the decision statement of for loop. p does take different values inside the loop, but doesn't influence the decision statement, number of times the p*p gets executed, its time complexity is O(n).
O(logn):
for(i=0;i<n;i=i*c){// Any O(1) expression}
Here, time complexity is O(logn) when the index i is multiplied/divided by a constant value.
In the second case,
for(p=2,i=1,i<n;i++){ p=p*p }
The incremental increase is constant i.e i=i+1, the loop will run n times irrespective of the value of p. Hence the loop alone has a complexity of O(n). Considering naive multiplication p = p*p is an O(n) expression where n is the size of p. Hence the complexity should be O(n^2)
Let me summarize with an example, suppose the value of n is 8 then the possible values of i are 1,2,4,8 as soon as 8 comes look will break. You can see loop run for 3 times i.e. log(n) times as the value of i keeps on increasing by 2X. Hence, True.
For the second part, its is a normal loop which runs for all values of i from 1 to n. And the value of p is increasing be the factor p^2n. So it should be O(p^2n). Thats why it is wrong.
In order to understand why some algorithm is O(log n) it is enough to check what happens when n = 2^k (i.e., we can restrict ourselves to the case where log n happens to be an integer k).
If we inject this into the expression
for(i=1; i<2^k; i=i*2) s+=i;
we see that i will adopt the values 2, 4, 8, 16,..., i.e., 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^4,... until reaching the last one 2^k. In other words, the body of the loop will be evaluated k times. Therefore, if we assume that the body is O(1), we see that the complexity is k*O(1) = O(k) = O(log n).
I just wanted to make sure I'm going in the right direction. I want to find a max value of an array by recursively splitting it and find the max of each separate array. Because I am splitting it, it would be 2*T(n/2). And because I have to make a comparison at the end for the 2 arrays, I have T(1).
So would my recurrence relation be like this:
T = { 2*T(n/2) + 1, when n>=2 ;T(1), when n = 1;
and and therefore my complexity would be Theta(nlgn)?
The formula you composed seems about right, but your analysis isn't perfect.
T = 2*T(n/2) + 1 = 2*(2*T(n/4) + 1) + 1 = ...
For the i-th iteration you'll get:
Ti(n) = 2^i*T(n/2^i) + i
now what you want to know for which i does n/2^i equals 1 (or just about any constant, if you like) so you reach the end-condition of n=1.
That would be the solution to n/2^I = 1 -> I = Log2(n). Plant it in the equation for Ti and you get:
TI(n) = 2^log2(n)*T(n/2^log2(n)) + log2(n) = n*1+log2(n) = n + log2(n)
and you get T(n) = O(n + log2(n) (just like #bdares said) = O(n) (just like #bdares said)
No, no... you are taking O(1) time for each recursion.
How many are there?
There are N leaves, so you know it's at least O(N).
How many do you need to compare to find the absolute maximum? That's O(log(N)).
Add them together, don't multiply. O(N+log(N)) is your time complexity.