Given a list of numbers arr (not sorted) , find the Longest Arithmetic Progression in it.
Arrays: Integer a
1 ≤ arr.size() ≤ 10^3. and
-10^9 ≤ arr[i] ≤ 10^9.
Examples:
arr = [7,6,1,9,7,9,5,6,1,1,4,0] -------------- output = [7,6,5,4]
arr = [4,4,6,7,8,13,45,67] -------------- output = [4,6,8]
from itertools import combinations
def arithmeticProgression2(a):
n=len(a)
diff = ((y-x, x) for x, y in combinations(a, 2))
dic=[]
for d, n in diff:
k = []
seq=a
while n in seq:
k.append(n)
i=seq.index(n)
seq=seq[i+1:]
n += d
dic.append(k)
maxx=max([len(k) for k in dic])
for x in dic:
if len(x)==maxx:
return x
in case arr.size() is big enough. my code will be run more than 4000ms.
Example :
arr = [randint(-10**9,10**9) for i in range(10**3)]
runtime > 4000ms
How to reduce the space complexity for the above solution?
One of the things that makes the code slow is that you build series from scratch for each pair, which is not necessary:
you don't actually need to build k each time. If you just keep the step, the length and the start (or end) value of a progression, you know enough. Only build the progression explicitly for the final result
by doing this for each pair, you also create series where the start point is in fact in the middle of a longer series (having the same step), and so you partly do double work, and work that is not useful, as in that case the progression that starts earlier will evidently be longer than the currently analysed one.
It makes your code run in O(n³) time instead of the possible O(n²).
The following seems to return the result much faster in O(n²), using dynamic programming:
def longestprogression(data):
if len(data) < 3:
return data
maxlen = 0 # length of longest progression so far
endvalue = None # last value of longest progression
beststep = None # step of longest progression
# progressions ending in index i, keyed by their step size,
# with the progression length as value
dp = [{} for _ in range(len(data))]
# iterate all possible ending pairs of progressions
for j in range(1, len(arr)):
for i in range(j):
step = arr[j] - arr[i]
if step in dp[i]:
curlen = dp[i][step] + 1
else:
curlen = 2
dp[j][step] = curlen
if curlen > maxlen:
maxlen = curlen
endvalue = arr[j]
beststep = step
# rebuild the longest progression from the values we maintained
return list(reversed(range(endvalue, endvalue - maxlen * beststep, -beststep)))
Related
I am trying to extract all subsets from a list of elements which add up to a certain value.
Example -
List = [1,3,4,5,6]
Sum - 9
Output Expected = [[3,6],[5,4]]
Have tried different approaches and getting the expected output but on a huge list of elements it is taking a significant amount of time.
Can this be optimized using Dynamic Programming or any other technique.
Approach-1
def subset(array, num):
result = []
def find(arr, num, path=()):
if not arr:
return
if arr[0] == num:
result.append(path + (arr[0],))
else:
find(arr[1:], num - arr[0], path + (arr[0],))
find(arr[1:], num, path)
find(array, num)
return result
numbers = [2, 2, 1, 12, 15, 2, 3]
x = 7
subset(numbers,x)
Approach-2
def isSubsetSum(arr, subset, N, subsetSize, subsetSum, index , sum):
global flag
if (subsetSum == sum):
flag = 1
for i in range(0, subsetSize):
print(subset[i], end = " ")
print("")
else:
for i in range(index, N):
subset[subsetSize] = arr[i]
isSubsetSum(arr, subset, N, subsetSize + 1,
subsetSum + arr[i], i + 1, sum)
If you want to output all subsets you can't do better than a sluggish O(2^n) complexity, because in the worst case that will be the size of your output and time complexity is lower-bounded by output size (this is a known NP-Complete problem). But, if rather than returning a list of all subsets, you just want to return a boolean value indicating whether achieving the target sum is possible, or just one subset summing to target (if it exists), you can use dynamic programming for a pseudo-polynomial O(nK) time solution, where n is the number of elements and K is the target integer.
The DP approach involves filling in an (n+1) x (K+1) table, with the sub-problems corresponding to the entries of the table being:
DP[i][k] = subset(A[i:], k) for 0 <= i <= n, 0 <= k <= K
That is, subset(A[i:], k) asks, 'Can I sum to (little) k using the suffix of A starting at index i?' Once you fill in the whole table, the answer to the overall problem, subset(A[0:], K) will be at DP[0][K]
The base cases are for i=n: they indicate that you can't sum to anything except for 0 if you're working with the empty suffix of your array
subset(A[n:], k>0) = False, subset(A[n:], k=0) = True
The recursive cases to fill in the table are:
subset(A[i:], k) = subset(A[i+1:, k) OR (A[i] <= k AND subset(A[i+i:], k-A[i]))
This simply relates the idea that you can use the current array suffix to sum to k either by skipping over the first element of that suffix and using the answer you already had in the previous row (when that first element wasn't in your array suffix), or by using A[i] in your sum and checking if you could make the reduced sum k-A[i] in the previous row. Of course, you can only use the new element if it doesn't itself exceed your target sum.
ex: subset(A[i:] = [3,4,1,6], k = 8)
would check: could I already sum to 8 with the previous suffix (A[i+1:] = [4,1,6])? No. Or, could I use the 3 which is now available to me to sum to 8? That is, could I sum to k = 8 - 3 = 5 with [4,1,6]? Yes. Because at least one of the conditions was true, I set DP[i][8] = True
Because all the base cases are for i=n, and the recurrence relation for subset(A[i:], k) relies on the answers to the smaller sub-problems subset(A[i+i:],...), you start at the bottom of the table, where i = n, fill out every k value from 0 to K for each row, and work your way up to row i = 0, ensuring you have the answers to the smaller sub-problems when you need them.
def subsetSum(A: list[int], K: int) -> bool:
N = len(A)
DP = [[None] * (K+1) for x in range(N+1)]
DP[N] = [True if x == 0 else False for x in range(K+1)]
for i in range(N-1, -1, -1):
Ai = A[i]
DP[i] = [DP[i+1][k] or (Ai <=k and DP[i+1][k-Ai]) for k in range(0, K+1)]
# print result
print(f"A = {A}, K = {K}")
print('Ai,k:', *range(0,K+1), sep='\t')
for (i, row) in enumerate(DP): print(A[i] if i < N else None, *row, sep='\t')
print(f"DP[0][K] = {DP[0][K]}")
return DP[0][K]
subsetSum([1,4,3,5,6], 9)
If you want to return an actual possible subset alongside the bool indicating whether or not it's possible to make one, then for every True flag in your DP you should also store the k index for the previous row that got you there (it will either be the current k index or k-A[i], depending on which table lookup returned True, which will indicate whether or not A[i] was used). Then you walk backwards from DP[0][K] after the table is filled to get a subset. This makes the code messier but it's definitely do-able. You can't get all subsets this way though (at least not without increasing your time complexity again) because the DP table compresses information.
Here is the optimized solution to the problem with a complexity of O(n^2).
def get_subsets(data: list, target: int):
# initialize final result which is a list of all subsets summing up to target
subsets = []
# records the difference between the target value and a group of numbers
differences = {}
for number in data:
prospects = []
# iterate through every record in differences
for diff in differences:
# the number complements a record in differences, i.e. a desired subset is found
if number - diff == 0:
new_subset = [number] + differences[diff]
new_subset.sort()
if new_subset not in subsets:
subsets.append(new_subset)
# the number fell short to reach the target; add to prospect instead
elif number - diff < 0:
prospects.append((number, diff))
# update the differences record
for prospect in prospects:
new_diff = target - sum(differences[prospect[1]]) - prospect[0]
differences[new_diff] = differences[prospect[1]] + [prospect[0]]
differences[target - number] = [number]
return subsets
I'm tryin to design a function that, given an array A of N integers, returns the smallest positive integer (greater than 0) that does not occur in A.
This code works fine yet has a high order of complexity, is there another solution that reduces the order of complexity?
Note: The 10000000 number is the range of integers in array A, I tried the sort function but does it reduces the complexity?
def solution(A):
for i in range(10000000):
if(A.count(i)) <= 0:
return(i)
The following is O(n logn):
a = [2, 1, 10, 3, 2, 15]
a.sort()
if a[0] > 1:
print(1)
else:
for i in range(1, len(a)):
if a[i] > a[i - 1] + 1:
print(a[i - 1] + 1)
break
If you don't like the special handling of 1, you could just append zero to the array and have the same logic handle both cases:
a = sorted(a + [0])
for i in range(1, len(a)):
if a[i] > a[i - 1] + 1:
print(a[i - 1] + 1)
break
Caveats (both trivial to fix and both left as an exercise for the reader):
Neither version handles empty input.
The code assumes there no negative numbers in the input.
O(n) time and O(n) space:
def solution(A):
count = [0] * len(A)
for x in A:
if 0 < x <= len(A):
count[x-1] = 1 # count[0] is to count 1
for i in range(len(count)):
if count[i] == 0:
return i+1
return len(A)+1 # only if A = [1, 2, ..., len(A)]
This should be O(n). Utilizes a temporary set to speed things along.
a = [2, 1, 10, 3, 2, 15]
#use a set of only the positive numbers for lookup
temp_set = set()
for i in a:
if i > 0:
temp_set.add(i)
#iterate from 1 upto length of set +1 (to ensure edge case is handled)
for i in range(1, len(temp_set) + 2):
if i not in temp_set:
print(i)
break
My proposal is a recursive function inspired by quicksort.
Each step divides the input sequence into two sublists (lt = less than pivot; ge = greater or equal than pivot) and decides, which of the sublists is to be processed in the next step. Note that there is no sorting.
The idea is that a set of integers such that lo <= n < hi contains "gaps" only if it has less than (hi - lo) elements.
The input sequence must not contain dups. A set can be passed directly.
# all cseq items > 0 assumed, no duplicates!
def find(cseq, cmin=1):
# cmin = possible minimum not ruled out yet
size = len(cseq)
if size <= 1:
return cmin+1 if cmin in cseq else cmin
lt = []
ge = []
pivot = cmin + size // 2
for n in cseq:
(lt if n < pivot else ge).append(n)
return find(lt, cmin) if cmin + len(lt) < pivot else find(ge, pivot)
test = set(range(1,100))
print(find(test)) # 100
test.remove(42)
print(find(test)) # 42
test.remove(1)
print(find(test)) # 1
Inspired by various solutions and comments above, about 20%-50% faster in my (simplistic) tests than the fastest of them (though I'm sure it could be made faster), and handling all the corner cases mentioned (non-positive numbers, duplicates, and empty list):
import numpy
def firstNotPresent(l):
positive = numpy.fromiter(set(l), dtype=int) # deduplicate
positive = positive[positive > 0] # only keep positive numbers
positive.sort()
top = positive.size + 1
if top == 1: # empty list
return 1
sequence = numpy.arange(1, top)
try:
return numpy.where(sequence < positive)[0][0]
except IndexError: # no numbers are missing, top is next
return top
The idea is: if you enumerate the positive, deduplicated, sorted list starting from one, the first time the index is less than the list value, the index value is missing from the list, and hence is the lowest positive number missing from the list.
This and the other solutions I tested against (those from adrtam, Paritosh Singh, and VPfB) all appear to be roughly O(n), as expected. (It is, I think, fairly obvious that this is a lower bound, since every element in the list must be examined to find the answer.) Edit: looking at this again, of course the big-O for this approach is at least O(n log(n)), because of the sort. It's just that the sort is so fast comparitively speaking that it looked linear overall.
PROBLEM :
You are given a list of size N, initialized with zeroes. You have to perform M operations on the list and output the maximum of final values of all the elements in the list. For every operation, you are given three integers a,b and k and you have to add value to all the elements ranging from index a to b(both inclusive).
Input Format
First line will contain two integers N and M separated by a single space.
Next lines will contain three integers a,b and k separated by a single space.
Numbers in list are numbered from 1 to N.
Here is the code which I have written:
n,m=map(int,input().split())
arr=[]
for i in range(n+1):
arr.append(0)
for j in range(m):
a,b,k=map(int,input().split())
for i in range(a,b+1):
arr[i]+=k;
print(max(arr))
When I try to submit my solution I get a "TERMINATED DUE TO TIMOUT" message.Could you please suggest a strategy to avoid these kind of errors and also a solution to the problem.
Thanks in advance!
Don't loop over the list range; instead, use map again to increment the indicated values. Something like
for j in range(m):
a,b,k=map(int,input().split())
arr[a:b+1] = map(lambda <increment-by-k>, arr[a:b+1])
This should let your resident optimization swoop in and save some time.
You probably need an algorithm that has better complexity than O(M*N).
You can put interval delimiters in a list:
n,m=map(int,input().split())
intervals = []
arr = [0 for i in range(n)]
for j in range(m):
a,b,k=map(int,input().split())
intervals += [(str(a), "begin", k)]
intervals += [(str(b), "end", k)]
intervals = sorted(intervals, key=lambda x: x[0]+x[1])
k, i = 0, 0
for op in intervals:
ind = int(op[0])
if op[1] == "begin":
while ind > i:
arr[i] += k
i += 1
k += op[2]
else:
while i <= ind:
arr[i] += k
i+= 1
k -= op[2]
print(arr)
If the sorting algorithm is O(MlogM), this is O(MlogM + N)
First of all, sorry about the naive question. But I couldn't find help elsewhere
I'm trying to create an Optimal Search Tree using Dynamic Programing in Python that receives two lists (a set of keys and a set of frequencies) and returns two answers:
1 - The smallest path cost.
2 - The generated tree for that smallest cost.
I basically need to create a tree organized by the most accessed items on top (most accessed item it's the root), and return the smallest path cost from that tree, by using the Dynamic Programming solution.
I've the following implemented code using Python:
def optimalSearchTree(keys, freq, n):
#Create an auxiliary 2D matrix to store results of subproblems
cost = [[0 for x in xrange(n)] for y in xrange(n)]
#For a single key, cost is equal to frequency of the key
#for i in xrange (0,n):
# cost[i][i] = freq[i]
# Now we need to consider chains of length 2, 3, ... .
# L is chain length.
for L in xrange (2,n):
for i in xrange(0,n-L+1):
j = i+L-1
cost[i][j] = sys.maxint
for r in xrange (i,j):
if (r > i):
c = cost[i][r-1] + sum(freq, i, j)
elif (r < j):
c = cost[r+1][j] + sum(freq, i, j)
elif (c < cost[i][j]):
cost[i][j] = c
return cost[0][n-1]
def sum(freq, i, j):
s = 0
k = i
for k in xrange (k,j):
s += freq[k]
return s
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
n=sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
print(optimalSearchTree(keys, freq, n))
I'm trying to output the answer 1. The smallest cost for that tree should be 142 (the value stored on the Matrix Position [0][n-1], according to the Dynamic Programming solution). But unfortunately it's returning 0. I couldn't find any issues in that code. What's going wrong?
You have several very questionable statements in your code, definitely inspired by C/Java programming practices. For instance,
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
n=sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
I think you think you calculate the number of items in the list. However, n is not 3:
sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
3.142857142857143
What you need is this:
n = len(keys)
One more find: elif (r < j) is always True, because r is in the range between i (inclusive) and j (exclusive). The elif (c < cost[i][j]) condition is never checked. The matrix c is never updated in the loop - that's why you always end up with a 0.
Another suggestion: do not overwrite the built-in function sum(). Your namesake function calculates the sum of all items in a slice of a list:
sum(freq[i:j])
import sys
def optimalSearchTree(keys, freq):
#Create an auxiliary 2D matrix to store results of subproblems
n = len(keys)
cost = [[0 for x in range(n)] for y in range(n)]
storeRoot = [[0 for i in range(n)] for i in range(n)]
#For a single key, cost is equal to frequency of the key
for i in range (0,n):
cost[i][i] = freq[i]
# Now we need to consider chains of length 2, 3, ... .
# L is chain length.
for L in range (2,n+1):
for i in range(0,n-L+1):
j = i + L - 1
cost[i][j] = sys.maxsize
for r in range (i,j+1):
c = (cost[i][r-1] if r > i else 0)
c += (cost[r+1][j] if r < j else 0)
c += sum(freq[i:j+1])
if (c < cost[i][j]):
cost[i][j] = c
storeRoot[i][j] = r
return cost[0][n-1], storeRoot
if __name__ == "__main__" :
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
print(optimalSearchTree(keys, freq))
So I'm working on some practice problems and having trouble reducing the complexity. I am given an array of distinct integers a[] and a threshold value T. I need to find the number of triplets i,j,k such that a[i] < a[j] < a[k] and a[i] + a[j] + a[k] <= T. I've gotten this down from O(n^3) to O(n^2 log n) with the following python script. I'm wondering if I can optimize this any further.
import sys
import bisect
first_line = sys.stdin.readline().strip().split(' ')
num_numbers = int(first_line[0])
threshold = int(first_line[1])
count = 0
if num_numbers < 3:
print count
else:
numbers = sys.stdin.readline().strip().split(' ')
numbers = map(int, numbers)
numbers.sort()
for i in xrange(num_numbers - 2):
for j in xrange(i+1, num_numbers - 1):
k_1 = threshold - (numbers[i] + numbers[j])
if k_1 < numbers[j]:
break
else:
cross_thresh = bisect.bisect(numbers,k_1) - (j+1)
if cross_thresh > 0:
count += cross_thresh
print count
In the above example, the first input line simply provides the number of numbers and the threshold. The next line is the full list. If the list is less than 3, there is no triplets that can exist, so we return 0. If not, we read in the full list of integers, sort them, and then process them as follows: we iterate over every element of i and j (such that i < j) and we compute the highest value of k that would not break i + j + k <= T. We then find the index (s) of the first element in the list that violates this condition and take all the elements between j and s and add them to the count. For 30,000 elements in a list, this takes about 7 minutes to run. Is there any way to make it faster?
You are performing binary search for each (i,j) pair to find the corresponding value for k. Hence O(n^2 log(n)).
I can suggest an algorithm that will have the worst case time complexity of O(n^2).
Assume the list is sorted from left to right and elements are numbered from 1 to n. Then the pseudo code is:
for i = 1 to n - 2:
j = i + 1
find maximal k with binary search
while j < k:
j = j + 1
find maximal k with linear search to the left, starting from last k position
The reason this has the worst case time complexity of O(n^2) and not O(n^3) is because the position k is monotonically decreasing. Thus even with linear scanning, you are not spending O(n) for each (i,j) pair. Rather, you are spending a total of O(n) time to scan for k for each distinct i value.
O(n^2) version implemented in Python (based on wookie919's answer):
def triplets(N, T):
N = sorted(N)
result = 0
for i in xrange(len(N)-2):
k = len(N)-1
for j in xrange(i+1, len(N)-1):
while k>=0 and N[i]+N[j]+N[k]>T:
k-=1
result += max(k, j)-j
return result
import random
sample = random.sample(xrange(1000000), 30000)
print triplets(sample, 500000)