What is the maximum number of rotations while inserting a new element into n-element Red Black Tree?
If I'm correct, insertion that does not violate rules of RBT requries maximum of 2 rotations (2 cases). Assuming that's it, is O(1) also a correct answer?
If that's right, confirm it and please tell me, what requires maximum of 3 rotations?
A maximum of 3 operations(or 2 rotations) are needed when implementing a Red-Black Tree correctly. For example the central BST shown in this image will need 3 operations to make it confirm to the Red Black BST's rules.
Image taken from Robert Sedgewick's slides from this MOOC..
Related
I'm trying to code a trivial pursuit game. I want to give an id for every space of the board in order to use them for the movements. I need to know for every space which is next to which/match with each other.
But because of the geometry of the board(extern circle + radii), I didn't find the right logic behind this.
I am thinking of an ID based on 7 numbers (for the 6 radii + the circle). For example :
//this is not my code, i'm just trying to show example of IDs
center = [0][0][0][0][0][0][-2]
one on the "2nd radius" = [0][3][0][0][0][0][-2]
one the circle and the "3rd radius" = [0][0][6][0][0][0][22]
one on the circle = [0][0][0][0][0][0][21]
I have no idea if it's gonna work or if it's optimal, i will try and see.
If some of you have any better idea for name the ID, i would be happy to listen to them.
Here is an image of the board.
enter image description here
Thank you for helping!
OK, seeems you are inventing some coordinate system for this wheel for easy addressing and easy transtions between cells. System with many indices looks too complex.
Perhaps two-index scheme would be appropriate. Resembles polar coordinates:
The first index 0..6 as distance from the center.
The second one 1..42 - angular position.
So center cell is A[0][0] (the second index is not defined, we can choose any)
It's neighbors are A[1][1], A[1][8], A[1][15] ..A[1][36] (marked with 1 at your picture)
Similar for the next cells at the rays A[2][1], A[2][8], A[2][15] ..A[2][36] and so on
Wheel cells are A[6][1], A[6][2]..A[6][42]
Now neighbor cells have coordinates where one index differs by 1 (except for central cell, extra case)
Is this scheme suitable?
This is a bit of a long-shot. I really don't know where to ask this question.
I've been trying out CodeConnection + MakeCode with Minecraft and I haven't been able to figure out if there is correct way to place half-slabs at 0.5 step y axes increments.
I tried using a line between 2 points, but it left gaps between each slab.
If I try moving up 0.5, then it rounds it up to 1, and again leaves gaps.
It appears that all of the builder functions seem operate at a resolution of 1 block. However in-game I can obviously place slabs in 0.5 block increments to make stairs etc.
Blocks only exist at integer coordinates. Half slabs that exist in the top half of their space are still at a full integer coordinate. They just have a BlockState value of bottom=top (or top_slot_bit=true on Bedrock, represented by the integer value 8 as a bitflag, eg: 0b1... where the . bits are the integer representation of what type of slab (wood, stone, quartz...)).
What you're looking for is this widget, under Blocks:
You can set the block and then an integer representation of the desired data value (see the wiki on data values) in the numerical slot. This widget can then be dragged into the (block) portion of any block widget:
You'll probably have to some variable fiddling to get the data value to swap back and forth as you need it to, but that should solve the hurdle you've been facing.
I am trying to model the interior of an epithelial space and am stuck on movement around the interior edges of a cylindrical space. Basically, I'm trying to implement StickyBorders and keep agents on those borders in a cylindrical space that I am creating.
Is there a way to use cylindrical coordinates in Repast Simphony? I found this example (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259695792_An_Agent-Based_Model_of_Vascular_Disease_Remodeling_in_Pulmonary_Arterial_Hypertension) where they seem to have done something similar, but the paper doesn't explain methods in much depth, and I don't believe this is an example in the repast simphony models.
Currently, I have a class of epithelial cells that are set up to form a cylinder and other agents start just inside that cylinder. To move, they are choosing their most desired spot (similar to the Zombie code) then pointing to a new location in the direction of that desired location within one grid square of that original location. They check that new point before moving to it and make sure that there are at least two other epithelial cells in the immediate moore neighborhood, to ensure they stay against the wall.
GridPoint intendedpt = new GridPoint((int)Math.rint(alongX),(int)Math.rint(alongY),(int)Math.rint(alongZ));
GridCellNgh<EpithelialCell> nearEpithelium = new GridCellNgh<EpithelialCell>(mac_grid, intendedpt, EpithelialCell.class, 1,1,1);
List<GridCell<EpithelialCell>> EpiCells = nearEpithelium.getNeighborhood(false);
int nearbyEpiCellsCount=0;
for (GridCell<EpithelialCell> cell: EpiCells) {
nearbyEpiCellsCount++;
}
if (nearbyEpiCellsCount<2) {
System.out.println(this + " leaving epithelial wall /r");
RunEnvironment.getInstance().pauseRun();
//TODO: where to go if false
}
I am wondering if there is a way to either set the boundaries of the space to be a cylinder or to check which side of the agent is against the wall and restrict its movement in that direction.
The sticky border code (StickyBorders.java) essentially just checks if the point that the agent moves to is beyond any of the space's dimensions, and if so the point is clamped to that dimension. So, for example, if the space is 3x4 and an agent's movement would take it to 4,2, then that point becomes 3,2 and the agent is placed there. Can you do something like that in this case? If not, can you edit your question to explain why not and maybe that will help us understand better.
The approach we took in that model was to use a 3D grid space with custom borders and query methods. The space itself was still Cartesian - we just visualized it as a cylinder using custom display code. Using the Cartesian grid was an reasonable approximation for this application since the cell dimensions were significantly smaller that the vessel radius, so curvature effects were neglected. The boundary conditions on the vessel space were wrap around in the angular dimension, so that cells could move continuously around the circumference of the vessel, and the axial boundary conditions were also wrapped, as we assumed a long enough vessel length that this would be reasonable. The wall thickness dimension had hard boundaries at the basement membrane (y=0) and at the fluid interface (y=wall thickness).
Depending on which type of space you are using, you will need to implement a PointTranslator or GridPointTranslator that performs the border functions. If you want specific examples of the code I suggest you reach out to the author's directly.
I was trying to solve Google Code Jam problems and there is one of them that I don't understand. Here is the question (World Finals 2013 - problem C): https://code.google.com/codejam/contest/2437491/dashboard#s=p2&a=2
And here follows the problem analysis: https://code.google.com/codejam/contest/2437491/dashboard#s=a&a=2
I don't understand why we can use binary search. In order to use binary search the elements have to be sorted. In order words: for a given element e, we can't have any element less than e at its right side. But that is not the case in this problem. Let me give you an example:
Suppose we do what the analysis tells us to do: we start with a left bound angle of 90° and a right bound angle of 0°. Our first search will be at angle of 45°. Suppose we find that, for this angle, X < N. In this case, the analysis tells us to make our left bound 45°. At this point, we can have discarded a viable solution (at, let's say, 75°) and at the same time there can be no more solutions between 0° and 45°, leading us to say that there's no solution (wrongly).
I don't think Google's solution is wrong =P. But I can't figure out why we can use a binary search in this case. Anyone knows?
I don't understand why we can use binary search. In order to use
binary search the elements have to be sorted. In order words: for a
given element e, we can't have any element less than e at its right
side. But that is not the case in this problem.
A binary search works in this case because:
the values vary by at most 1
we only need to find one solution, not all of them
the first and last value straddle the desired value (X .. N .. 2N-X)
I don't quite follow your counter-example, but here's an example of a binary search on a sequence with the above constraints. Looking for 3:
1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 4
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
*
I have read the problem and in the meantime thought about the solution. When I read the solution I have seen that they have mostly done the same as I would have, however, I did not thought about some minor optimizations they were using, as I was still digesting the task.
Solution:
Step1: They choose a median so that each of the line splits the set into half, therefore there will be two provinces having x mines, while the other two provinces will have N - x mines, respectively, because the two lines each split the set into half and
2 * x + 2 * (2 * N - x) = 2 * x + 4 * N - 2 * x = 4 * N.
If x = N, then we were lucky and accidentally found a solution.
Step2: They are taking advantage of the "fact" that no three lines are collinear. I believe they are wrong, as the task did not tell us this is the case and they have taken advantage of this "fact", because they assumed that the task is solvable, however, in the task they were clearly asking us to tell them if the task is impossible with the current input. I believe this part is smelly. However, the task is not necessarily solvable, not to mention the fact that there might be a solution even for the case when three mines are collinear.
Thus, somewhere in between X had to be exactly equal to N!
Not true either, as they have stated in the task that
You should output IMPOSSIBLE instead if there is no good placement of
borders.
Step 3: They are still using the "fact" described as un-true in the previous step.
So let us close the book and think ourselves. Their solution is not bad, but they assume something which is not necessarily true. I believe them that all their inputs contained mines corresponding to their assumption, but this is not necessarily the case, as the task did not clearly state this and I can easily create a solvable input having three collinear mines.
Their idea for median choice is correct, so we must follow this procedure, the problem gets more complicated if we do not do this step. Now, we could search for a solution by modifying the angle until we find a solution or reach the border of the period (this was my idea initially). However, we know which provinces have too much mines and which provinces do not have enough mines. Also, we know that the period is pi/2 or, in other terms 90 degrees, because if we move alpha by pi/2 into either positive (counter-clockwise) or negative (clockwise) direction, then we have the same problem, but each child gets a different province, which is irrelevant from our point of view, they will still be rivals, I guess, but this does not concern us.
Now, we try and see what happens if we rotate the lines by pi/4. We will see that some mines might have changed borders. We have either not reached a solution yet, or have gone too far and poor provinces became rich and rich provinces became poor. In either case we know in which half the solution should be, so we rotate back/forward by pi/8. Then, with the same logic, by pi/16, until we have found a solution or there is no solution.
Back to the question, we cannot arrive into the situation described by you, because if there was a valid solution at 75 degrees, then we would see that we have not rotated the lines enough by rotating only 45 degrees, because then based on the number of mines which have changed borders we would be able to determine the right angle-interval. Remember, that we have two rich provinces and two poor provinces. Each rich provinces have two poor bordering provinces and vice-versa. So, the poor provinces should gain mines and the rich provinces should lose mines. If, when rotating by 45 degrees we see that the poor provinces did not get enough mines, then we will choose to rotate more until we see they have gained enough mines. If they have gained too many mines, then we change direction.
I have a projectile that I would like to pass through specific coordinates at the apex of its path. I have been using a superb equation that giogadi outlined here, by plugging in the velocity values it produces into chipmunk's cpBodyApplyImpulse function.
The equation has one drawback that I haven't been able to figure out. It only works when the coordinates that I want to hit have a y value higher than the cannon (where my projectile starts). This means that I can't shoot at a downward angle.
Can anybody help me find a suitable equation that works no matter where the target is in relation to the cannon?
As pointed out above, there isn't any way to make the apex be lower than the height of the cannon (without making gravity work backwards). However, it is possible to make the projectile pass through a point below the cannon; the equations are all here. The equation you need to solve is:
angle = arctan((v^2 [+-]sqrt(v^4 - g*(x^2+2*y*v^2)))/g*x)
where you choose a velocity and plug in the x and y positions of the target - assuming the cannon is at (0,0). The [+-] thing means that you can choose either root. If the argument to the square root function is negative (an imaginary root) you need a larger velocity. So, if you are "in range" you have two possible angles for any particular velocity (other than in the maximum range 45 degree case where the two roots should give the same answer).
I suspect one trajectory will tend to 'look' much more sensible than the other, but that's something to play around with once you have something working. You may want to stick with the apex grazing code for the cases where the target is above the cannon.