I have a non-linear constraint in the form of max_{k in V, j in F^o: o > d} {U_{jk} - U_{ik} > 0 for all i in F^d. The set V denotes a fleet of vehicles, while F^o represent customers of a certain type and F^i represents customers of a certain type. How do I implement a max function that will be able to compute this in CPLEX, maxl() and IloMAx() does not seem to work
If I understood correctly your max function is to return the maximum value, among the positive values, of U_jk - U_ik for all k in V and j in F^o such that o > d. If that is correct all you need is a couple of loops, one on the k and another one on the j. For each (k, j) pair you need then to verify all the conditions:
Exceeding the higher value obtained; while also
Having a positive value for U_jk - U_ik.
I'll assume you will have the o > d condition checked outside the max function to simplify it. I propose you to do it as follows:
IloInt myMaxFunction(IloIntArray V, IloIntArray Fo, Ilo2IntArray U, IloInt i) {
IloInt jMax;// j index of the maximum value
IloInt kMax;// k index of the maximum value
IloInt maxVal = -IloInfinity;// maximum value
IloInt Difference;
for (IloInt k = 0; k < V.getSize(); k++) {
for (IloInt j = 0; j < Fo.getSize(); j++) {
Difference = U[F0[j]][V[k]] - U[i][V[k]];
if ((Difference > 0) && (Difference > maxVal)) {
jMax = j;
kMax = k;
maxVal = Difference;
}
}
}
return maxVal;
}
You will be entering the two linear arrays, the first containing the sets of vehicles, the second one containing the customers farther than a distance d to the depot I assume. The third parameter is a bidimensional set of integers you can define with: typedef IloArray<IloIntArray> Ilo2IntArray. Finally, you will also need the customer i as input.
For all (k, j) pair of elements such that k is a vehicle in V and j is a customer on the set F^o you will compute the difference U_jk - U_ik, verify simultaneously the aforementioned conditions. In such case, you will update the indexes and maximal value and continue.
Notice, that maxVal must be initialized to a value that will be improved the first time the conditions are verified. The best/higher value will be returned by the function.
One is glad to be of service...
Y
Related
void buzz(int num, int [] a)
{
for(int i=1;i<num;i*=2){
for(int j=0;j<a[i]%num;j++){
print(num);
}
}
}
I understand that the outer for loop runs for log n times. Need help in understanding the complexity of the inner loop and the overall.
Let us assume num = 2^n for simplicity.
The inner loop runs a[i] % num times, which is comprised in range [0, num-1]. The outer loop runs n times so you can conclude O(num.log(num)) = O(n.2^n) worst-case complexity.
For a precise evaluation, let r[i] := a[i] % num. Then the number of print's is
r[1] + r[2] + r[4] + r[8] + ... r[2^(n-1)].
This is n times the average r (for the relevant indexes; the expectation of r could be (num-1)/2)).
what is the complexity of the second for loop? would it be n-i? from my understanding a the first for loop will go n times, but the index in the second for loop is set to i instead.
//where n is the number elements in an array
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = i; j < n; j++) {
// Some Constant time task
}
}
In all, the inner loop iterates sum(1..n) times, which is n * (n + 1) / 2, which is O(n2)
If you try to visualise this as a matrix where lines represents i and each columns represents j you'll see that this forms a triangle with the sides n
Example with n being 4
0 1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
3
The inner loop has (on average) complexity n/2 which is O(n).
The total complexity is n*(n+1)/2 or O(n^2)
The number of steps this takes is a Triangle Number. Here's a bit of code I put together in LINQpad (yeah, sorry about answering in C#, but hopefully this is still readable):
void Main()
{
long k = 0;
// Whatever you want
const int n = 13;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
for (int j = i; j < n; j++)
{
k++;
}
}
k.Dump();
triangleNumber(n).Dump();
(((n * n) + n) / 2).Dump();
}
int triangleNumber(int number)
{
if (number == 0) return 0;
else return number + triangleNumber(number - 1);
}
All 3 print statements (.Dump() in LINQpad) produce the same answer (91 for the value of n I selected, but again you can choose whatever you want).
As others indicated, this is O(n^2). (You can also see this Q&A for more details on that).
We can see that the total iteration of the loop is n*(n+1)/2. I am assuming that you are clear with that from the above explanations.
Now let's find the asymptotic time complexity in an easy logical way.
Big Oh, comes to play when the value of n is a large number, in such cases we need not consider the dividing by 2 ( 2 is a constant) because (large number / 2) is also a large number.
This leaves us with n*(n+1).
As explained above, since n is a large number, (n+1) can be approximated to (n).
thus leaving us with (n*n).
hence the time complexity O(n^2).
In the following piece of code, f() is any function taking time of Θ(1). The time complexity should be Θ(n4/3), can someone explain why?
for(int i = 1; i ≤ n; i = 2∗i) {
for(int j = 1; j∗j∗j ≤ n; j = j+1) {
for(int k = 1; k ≤ i∗i; k = k + i) {
f();
}
}
}
By my analysis, the first for loop takes Θ(log2 n) time, the second for loop is Θ(n1/3), and the third for loop is Θ(i). So in total we have Θ((log2 n) × n1/3 × i).
Since i can be n, we have Θ((log2 n) × n1/3 × n) = Θ(n4/3 log2 n). Where is my mistake?
Your bound is not tight, because you counted i as Θ(n), but i is not Θ(n) on average. Consider the sequence of values that i takes, and add these up to count the total number of iterations for the inner loop. We can ignore the middle loop over j for now, since it is independent of i and k.
The sequence of values for i is 1, 2, 4, 8, ... up to n. If we say n = 2r for some r, this is a geometric progression with sum 2r+1 - 1, which is about twice as big as n, so it's Θ(n). This counts both the outer and inner loop; the middle loop gives another factor of Θ(n1/3), and hence the overall complexity is Θ(n4/3) as required.
So these are the for loops that I have to find the time complexity, but I am not really clearly understood how to calculate.
for (int i = n; i > 1; i /= 3) {
for (int j = 0; j < n; j += 2) {
... ...
}
for (int k = 2; k < n; k = (k * k) {
...
}
}
For the first line, (int i = n; i > 1; i /= 3), keeps diving i by 3 and if i is less than 1 then the loop stops there, right?
But what is the time complexity of that? I think it is n, but I am not really sure. The reason why I am thinking it is n is, if I assume that n is 30 then i will be like 30, 10, 3, 1 then the loop stops. It runs n times, doesn't it?
And for the last for loop, I think its time complexity is also n because what it does is
k starts as 2 and keeps multiplying itself to itself until k is greater than n.
So if n is 20, k will be like 2, 4, 16 then stop. It runs n times too.
I don't really think I am understanding this kind of questions because time complexity can be log(n) or n^2 or etc but all I see is n.
I don't really know when it comes to log or square. Or anything else.
Every for loop runs n times, I think. How can log or square be involved?
Can anyone help me understanding this? Please.
If you want to calculate the time complexity of an algorithm, go through this post here: How to find time complexity of an algorithm
That said, the way you're thinking about algorithm complexity is small and linear. It helps to think about it in orders of magnitude, then plot it that way. If you take:
x, z = 0
for (int i = n; i > 1; i /= 3) {
for (int j = 0; j < n; j += 2) {
x = x + 1
}
for (int k = 2; k < n; k = (k * k) {
z = z + 1
}
}
and plot x and z on a graph where n goes from 1 -> 10 -> 100 -> 1000 -> 10^15 or so, you'll get an answer which looks like an n^2 graph. When analyzing algorithmic complexity you're primarily interested in maximum the number of times, in either the worst or most common case, your inputs are looped through omitting constants. So in this case I would expect your algorithm to be O(n^2)
For further reading, I suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Algorithms ; it's not exactly easy but covers this in depth.
Find the nth int with 10 set bits
n is an int in the range 0<= n <= 30 045 014
The 0th int = 1023, the 1st = 1535 and so on
snob() same number of bits,
returns the lowest integer bigger than n with the same number of set bits as n
int snob(int n) {
int a=n&-n, b=a+n;
return b|(n^b)/a>>2;
}
calling snob n times will work
int nth(int n){
int o =1023;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)o=snob(o);
return o;
}
example
https://ideone.com/ikGNo7
Is there some way to find it faster?
I found one pattern but not sure if it's useful.
using factorial you can find the "indexes" where all 10 set bits are consecutive
1023 << x = the (x+10)! / (x! * 10!) - 1 th integer
1023<<1 is the 10th
1023<<2 is the 65th
1023<<3 the 285th
...
Btw I'm not a student and this is not homework.
EDIT:
Found an alternative to snob()
https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#NextBitPermutation
int lnbp(int v){
int t = (v | (v - 1)) + 1;
return t | ((((t & -t) / (v & -v)) >> 1) - 1);
}
I have built an implementation that should satisfy your needs.
/** A lookup table to see how many combinations preceeded this one */
private static int[][] LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS;
/** The number of possible combinations with i bits */
private static int[] NBR_COMBINATIONS;
static {
LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS = new int[Integer.SIZE][Integer.SIZE];
for (int bit = 0; bit < Integer.SIZE; bit++) {
// Ignore less significant bits, compute how many combinations have to be
// visited to set this bit, i.e.
// (bit = 4, pos = 5), before came 0b1XXX and 0b1XXXX, that's C(3, 3) + C(4, 3)
int nbrBefore = 0;
// The nth-bit can be only encountered after pos n
for (int pos = bit; pos < Integer.SIZE; pos++) {
LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[bit][pos] = nbrBefore;
nbrBefore += nChooseK(pos, bit);
}
}
NBR_COMBINATIONS = new int[Integer.SIZE + 1];
for (int bits = 0; bits < NBR_COMBINATIONS.length; bits++) {
NBR_COMBINATIONS[bits] = nChooseK(Integer.SIZE, bits);
assert NBR_COMBINATIONS[bits] > 0; // Important for modulo check. Otherwise we must use unsigned arithmetic
}
}
private static int nChooseK(int n, int k) {
assert k >= 0 && k <= n;
if (k > n / 2) {
k = n - k;
}
long nCk = 1; // (N choose 0)
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++) {
// (N choose K+1) = (N choose K) * (n-k) / (k+1);
nCk *= (n - i);
nCk /= (i + 1);
}
return (int) nCk;
}
public static int nextCombination(int w, int n) {
// TODO: maybe for small n just advance naively
// Get the position of the current pattern w
int nbrBits = 0;
int position = 0;
while (w != 0) {
final int currentBit = Integer.lowestOneBit(w); // w & -w;
final int bitPos = Integer.numberOfTrailingZeros(currentBit);
position += LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[nbrBits][bitPos];
// toggle off bit
w ^= currentBit;
nbrBits++;
}
position += n;
// Wrapping, optional
position %= NBR_COMBINATIONS[nbrBits];
// And reverse lookup
int v = 0;
int m = Integer.SIZE - 1;
while (nbrBits-- > 0) {
final int[] bitPositions = LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[nbrBits];
// Search for largest bitPos such that position >= bitPositions[bitPos]
while (Integer.compareUnsigned(position, bitPositions[m]) < 0)
m--;
position -= bitPositions[m];
v ^= (0b1 << m--);
}
return v;
}
Now for some explanation. LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[bit][pos] is the core of the algorithm that makes it as fast as it is. The table is designed so that a bit pattern with k bits at positions p_0 < p_1 < ... < p_{k - 1} has a position of `\sum_{i = 0}^{k - 1}{ LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[i][p_i] }.
The intuition is that we try to move back the bits one by one until we reach the pattern where are all bits are at the lowest possible positions. Moving the i-th bit from position to k + 1 to k moves back by C(k-1, i-1) positions, provided that all lower bits are at the right-most position (no moving bits into or through each other) since we skip over all possible combinations with the i-1 bits in k-1 slots.
We can thus "decode" a bit pattern to a position, keeping track of the bits encountered. We then advance by n positions (rolling over in case we enumerated all possible positions for k bits) and encode this position again.
To encode a pattern, we reverse the process. For this, we move bits from their starting position forward, as long as the position is smaller than what we're aiming for. We could, instead of a linear search through LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS, employ a binary search for our target index m but it's hardly needed, the size of an int is not big. Nevertheless, we reuse our variant that a smaller bit must also come at a less significant position so that our algorithm is effectively O(n) where n = Integer.SIZE.
I remain with the following assertions to show the resulting algorithm:
nextCombination(0b1111111111, 1) == 0b10111111111;
nextCombination(0b1111111111, 10) == 0b11111111110;
nextCombination(0x00FF , 4) == 0x01EF;
nextCombination(0x7FFFFFFF , 4) == 0xF7FFFFFF;
nextCombination(0x03FF , 10) == 0x07FE;
// Correct wrapping
nextCombination(0b1 , 32) == 0b1;
nextCombination(0x7FFFFFFF , 32) == 0x7FFFFFFF;
nextCombination(0xFFFFFFEF , 5) == 0x7FFFFFFF;
Let us consider the numbers with k=10 bits set.
The trick is to determine the rank of the most significant one, for a given n.
There is a single number of length k: C(k, k)=1. There are k+1 = C(k+1, k) numbers of length k + 1. ... There are C(m, k) numbers of length m.
For k=10, the limit n are 1 + 10 + 55 + 220 + 715 + 2002 + 5005 + 11440 + ...
For a given n, you easily find the corresponding m. Then the problem is reduced to finding the n - C(m, k)-th number with k - 1 bits set. And so on recursively.
With precomputed tables, this can be very fast. 30045015 takes 30 lookups, so that I guess that the worst case is 29 x 30 / 2 = 435 lookups.
(This is based on linear lookups, to favor small values. By means of dichotomic search, you reduce this to less than 29 x lg(30) = 145 lookups at worse.)
Update:
My previous estimates were pessimistic. Indeed, as we are looking for k bits, there are only 10 determinations of m. In the linear case, at worse 245 lookups, in the dichotomic case, less than 50.
(I don't exclude off-by-one errors in the estimates, but clearly this method is very efficient and requires no snob.)