You are given a 0-indexed array of integers nums of length n. You are initially positioned at nums[0].
Each element nums[i] represents the maximum length of a forward jump from index i. In other words, if you are at nums[i], you can jump to any nums[i + j] where:
0 <= j <= nums[i] and
i + j < n
Return the minimum number of jumps to reach nums[n - 1]. The test cases are generated such that you can reach nums[n - 1].
Example 1:
Input: nums = [2,3,1,1,4]
Output: 2
Explanation: The minimum number of jumps to reach the last index is 2. Jump 1 step from index 0 to 1, then 3 steps to the last index.
Example 2:
Input: nums = [2,3,0,1,4]
Output: 2
My solution:
class Solution:
def jump(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
j = len(nums)-1
res = []
while j >= 0:
cursor = j
valid_j = j # this variable will hold the best value of j to be set
while cursor >= 0:
if nums[cursor] + cursor >= j:
valid_j = cursor
cursor-=1
res.append(valid_j)
j = valid_j
return len(res)
Either of the while loop doesn't terminate and I am unable to figure out why. Time limit exceeded error.
Please help by explaining the error.
Thanks!
Your while condition is wrong. It will always be true since j is never going to become negative.
The meaning of j in your algorithm is the index that must be jumped to from some earlier index. But index 0 must never be jumped to, since we already achieved that index by starting there.
To fix this, the while condition should be changed to j > 0.
It should be noted that this is not a very efficient solution, as cursor is repeatedly reading the same values of the list, giving this algorithm a worst time complexity of O(𝑛²).
It is possible to solve this problem without nested loop, using a forward loop.
Related
I have an algorithm that looks for the good pairs in a list of numbers. A good pair is being considered as index i being less than j and arr[i] < arr[j]. It currently has a complexity of O(n^2) but I want to make it O(nlogn) based on divide and conquering. How can I go about doing that?
Here's the algorithm:
def goodPairs(nums):
count = 0
for i in range(0,len(nums)):
for j in range(i+1,len(nums)):
if i < j and nums[i] < nums[j]:
count += 1
j += 1
j += 1
return count
Here's my attempt at making it but it just returns 0:
def goodPairs(arr):
count = 0
if len(arr) > 1:
# Finding the mid of the array
mid = len(arr)//2
# Dividing the array elements
left_side = arr[:mid]
# into 2 halves
right_side = arr[mid:]
# Sorting the first half
goodPairs(left_side)
# Sorting the second half
goodPairs(right_side)
for i in left_side:
for j in right_side:
if i < j:
count += 1
return count
The current previously accepted answer by Fire Assassin doesn't really answer the question, which asks for better complexity. It's still quadratic, and about as fast as a much simpler quadratic solution. Benchmark with 2000 shuffled ints:
387.5 ms original
108.3 ms pythonic
104.6 ms divide_and_conquer_quadratic
4.1 ms divide_and_conquer_nlogn
4.6 ms divide_and_conquer_nlogn_2
Code (Try it online!):
def original(nums):
count = 0
for i in range(0,len(nums)):
for j in range(i+1,len(nums)):
if i < j and nums[i] < nums[j]:
count += 1
j += 1
j += 1
return count
def pythonic(nums):
count = 0
for i, a in enumerate(nums, 1):
for b in nums[i:]:
if a < b:
count += 1
return count
def divide_and_conquer_quadratic(arr):
count = 0
left_count = 0
right_count = 0
if len(arr) > 1:
mid = len(arr) // 2
left_side = arr[:mid]
right_side = arr[mid:]
left_count = divide_and_conquer_quadratic(left_side)
right_count = divide_and_conquer_quadratic(right_side)
for i in left_side:
for j in right_side:
if i < j:
count += 1
return count + left_count + right_count
def divide_and_conquer_nlogn(arr):
mid = len(arr) // 2
if not mid:
return 0
left = arr[:mid]
right = arr[mid:]
count = divide_and_conquer_nlogn(left)
count += divide_and_conquer_nlogn(right)
i = 0
for r in right:
while i < mid and left[i] < r:
i += 1
count += i
arr[:] = left + right
arr.sort() # linear, as Timsort takes advantage of the two sorted runs
return count
def divide_and_conquer_nlogn_2(arr):
mid = len(arr) // 2
if not mid:
return 0
left = arr[:mid]
right = arr[mid:]
count = divide_and_conquer_nlogn_2(left)
count += divide_and_conquer_nlogn_2(right)
i = 0
arr.clear()
append = arr.append
for r in right:
while i < mid and left[i] < r:
append(left[i])
i += 1
append(r)
count += i
arr += left[i:]
return count
from timeit import timeit
from random import shuffle
arr = list(range(2000))
shuffle(arr)
funcs = [
original,
pythonic,
divide_and_conquer_quadratic,
divide_and_conquer_nlogn,
divide_and_conquer_nlogn_2,
]
for func in funcs:
print(func(arr[:]))
for _ in range(3):
print()
for func in funcs:
arr2 = arr[:]
t = timeit(lambda: func(arr2), number=1)
print('%5.1f ms ' % (t * 1e3), func.__name__)
One of the most well-known divide-and-conquer algorithms is merge sort. And merge sort is actually a really good foundation for this algorithm.
The idea is that when comparing two numbers from two different 'partitions', you already have a lot of information about the remaining part of these partitions, as they're sorted in every iteration.
Let's take an example!
Consider the following partitions, which has already been sorted individually and "good pairs" have been counted.
Partition x: [1, 3, 6, 9].
Partition y: [4, 5, 7, 8].
It is important to note that the numbers from partition x is located further to the left in the original list than partition y. In particular, for every element in x, it's corresponding index i must be smaller than some index j for every element in y.
We will start of by comparing 1 and 4. Obviously 1 is smaller than 4. But since 4 is the smallest element in partition y, 1 must also be smaller than the rest of the elements in y. Consequently, we can conclude that there is 4 additional good pairs, since the index of 1 is also smaller than the index of the remaining elements of y.
The exact same thing happens with 3, and we can add 4 new good pairs to the sum.
For 6 we will conclude that there is two new good pairs. The comparison between 6 and 4 did not yield a good pair and likewise for 6 and 5.
You might now notice how these additional good pairs would be counted? Basically if the element from x is less than the element from y, add the number of elements remaining in y to the sum. Rince and repeat.
Since merge sort is an O(n log n) algorithm, and the additional work in this algorithm is constant, we can conclude that this algorithm is also an O(n log n) algorithm.
I will leave the actual programming as an exercise for you.
#niklasaa has added an explanation for the merge sort analogy, but your implementation still has an issue.
You are partitioning the array and calculating the result for either half, but
You haven't actually sorted either half. So when you're comparing their elements, your two pointer approach isn't correct.
You haven't used their results in the final computation. That's why you're getting an incorrect answer.
For point #1, you should look at merge sort, especially the merge() function. That logic is what will give you the correct pair count without having O(N^2) iteration.
For point #2, store the result for either half first:
# Sorting the first half
leftCount = goodPairs(left_side)
# Sorting the second half
rightCount = goodPairs(right_side)
While returning the final count, add these two results as well.
return count + leftCount + rightCount
Like #Abhinav Mathur stated, you have most of the code down, your problem is with these lines:
# Sorting the first half
goodPairs(left_side)
# Sorting the second half
goodPairs(right_side)
You want to store these in variables that should be declared before the if statement. Here's an updated version of your code:
def goodPairs(arr):
count = 0
left_count = 0
right_count = 0
if len(arr) > 1:
mid = len(arr) // 2
left_side = arr[:mid]
right_side = arr[mid:]
left_count = goodPairs(left_side)
right_count = goodPairs(right_side)
for i in left_side:
for j in right_side:
if i < j:
count += 1
return count + left_count + right_count
Recursion can be difficult at times, look into the idea of merge sort and quick sort to get better ideas on how the divide and conquer algorithms work.
Currently I found this code while learning from a video. However, the code has a flaw which was pointed out but I am unable to understand part of the algorithm and why that flaw is a 'flaw'.
i = len(numList) - 1
while i > 1:
j = 0
while j < i:
# If the value on the left is bigger switch values
if numList[j] > numList[j+1]:
temp = numList[j]
numList[j] = numList[j + 1]
numList[j + 1] = temp
else:
print()
j += 1
i -= 1
for k in numList:
print(k, end=", ")
print()
The code is supposed to order numbers from a list of numbers, however I am unable to understand two things out of it:
One is "Why is 1 subtracted from "i"?"
i = len(numList) - 1
And two, when the last number of the algorithm is "1" the algorithm won't order the numbers properly. For example, a list of "4, 2, 6, 3, 1" will be ordered as "2, 1, 3, 4, 6" instead of the correct "1, 2, 3, 4, 6,". People from the comments pointed out the reason for this is that it should be "while i > 0" or "while i >= 1" instead of "while i > 1".
while i > 1:
However I am unable to understand why it is like that.
"Why is 1 substracted from "i"?"
Because collections are zero-indexed. You have N elements, but the last indexable value is always N-1
When j < i and you access numList[j+1], then for when j is at its max value, j == i-1, and i is at its max value of len(numList) - 1, then you access numList[(i-1)+1] == numList[i] == numList[len(numList) - 1], which is the last available element.
two and the one that makes my head hurt the most
while i > 0 is correct because in the first iteration, i == 1 and j == 0, and you swap j+1 == 1 and j == 0 index when numList[j] > numList[j+1], so therefore 2 (index 1) and 1 (index 0) would be flipped, and you get 1,2,3,4,6 from 2,1,3,4,6
The algorithm carries the maximum of the first i+1 numbers to the front (so i+1-th position), by switching the neighbours until the maximum 'bubbles up'.
In the first iteration, i = len(numList) - 1, so the maximum of the whole numList
(index starts at 0 and ends at len(numList) - 1) is carried to the front.
This is the maximum value, which should be last. Now you only have to worry about
the first i - 1 values, therefore i is reduced by one.
Because i > 1 forgets about carrying the first element to the front (being the second position), 2 and 1 in your example are not ordered correctly, as they would need to switch.
Therefore you need the i = 1 iteration step.
There is a great site, which helps with visualisation of the sorting algorithms.
https://visualgo.net/en/sorting?slide=1. Your algorithm is called bubble-sort.
Here is the explanation of what I'm trying to say:-
Input:- 5 1 3 2 7
Output:- 3
Explanation:
In first move, we move 3 to the end. Our list becomes 5,1,2,7,3
In second move, we move 5 to the end. Our list becomes 1,2,7,3,5
In third move, we move 7 to the end. Our final list = 1,2,3,5,7
So, total moves are:- 3.
Here is what I tried to do, but failed.
a = [int(i) for i in input().split()]
count = 0
n = 0
while (n < len(a) - 1):
for i in range(0,n+1):
while (a[i] > a[i + 1]):
temp = a[i]
a.pop(i)
a.append(temp)
count += 1
n += 1
print(count, end='')
I'd like to request your assistance in helping in solving this question.
jdehesa's answer is basically right, but not optimal for cases, when there is more element of same value. Maybe more complex solution?
def min_moves(a):
c = 0
while(1):
tmp = None
for i in range(0, len(a)):
if a[i] != min(a[i:]) and (tmp is None or a[i] < a[tmp]):
tmp = i
if tmp is None:
return c
else:
a.append(a.pop(tmp))
c += 1
Edit:
Or if you don't need ordered list, there's much more easier solution just to count items that are out of order for the reason from jdehesa's solution :-D
def min_moves(a):
c = 0
for i in range(0, len(a)):
if a[i] != min(a[i:]):
c += 1
return c
Edit 2:
Or if you like jdehesa's answer more, small fix is to reduce lst to set, so it will get smallest index
sorted_index = {elem: i for i, elem in enumerate(sorted(set(lst)))}
I cannot comment yet.
I don't know if it can be done better, but I think the following algorithm gives the right answer:
def num_move_end_sort(lst):
# dict that maps each list element to its index in the sorted list
sorted_index = {elem: i for i, elem in enumerate(sorted(lst))}
moves = 0
for idx, elem in enumerate(lst):
if idx != sorted_index[elem] + moves:
moves += 1
return moves
print(num_move_end_sort([5, 1, 3, 2, 7]))
# 3
The idea is as follows. Each element of the list would have to be moved to the end at most once (it should be easy to see that a solution that moves the same element to the end more than once can be simplified). So each element in the list may or may not need to be moved once to the end. If an element does not need to be moved is because it ended up in the right position after all the moves. So, if an element is currently at position i and should end up in position j, then the element will not need to be moved if the number of previous elements that need to be moved, n, satisfies j == i + n (because, after those n moves, the element will indeed be at position j).
So in order to compute that, I sorted the list and took the indices of each element in the sorted list. Then you just count the number of elements that are not in the right position.
Note this algorithm does not tell you the actual sequence of steps you would need to take (the order in which the elements would have to be moved), only the count. The complexity is O(n·log(n)) (due to the sorting).
I think you can simplify your problem,
Counting elements that need to be pushed at the end is equivalent to counting the length of the elements that are not in sorted order.
l = [5, 1, 3, 2, 7]
sorted_l = sorted(l)
current_element = sorted_l[0]
current_index = 0
ans = 0
for element in l:
if current_element == element:
current_index += 1
if current_index < len(l):
current_element = sorted_l[current_index]
else:
ans += 1
print(ans)
Here the answer is 3
Given an array nums of integers and an int k, partition the array (i.e move the elements in nums) such that: All elements < k are moved to the left. All elements >= k are moved to the right
Return the partitioning index, i.e the first index i nums[i] >= k.
class Solution:
def partitionArray(self, nums, k):
# write your code here
if nums == []:
return 0
left = 0
i = 0
while i <= len(nums):
if nums[i] < k:
i += 1
left += 1
else:
r = nums[i]
del nums[i]
nums.append(r)
i += 1
return left
My idea is to going through the list one by one. The num[i] whose larger than k will be removed and append at the end of the num, the one whose smaller than k will be kept at the original place. Once the whole list has been going through, all the smaller num are at the front. left is a counter at this point for return. But I cannot fix the problem with nums[i]. After the each mods to the list, the counter i cannot point at the correct item in the list.
How can I write the code base on this idea???
You're looking for the index(k). This seems like a homework assignment so you may be limited to what built in functionality you can use. However, a pythonic approach to this is
def solution(nums, k):
return sorted(nums).index(k)
You are doing several things I would recommend avoiding.
Concurrent modification; you should not add or delete from a list while looping it.
You can not loop up to i == len(nums) because list indexes start at 0.
Since you are really just looking for index(k) you need only keep track of numbers less than k and not concern yourself with re-organizing the list.
class Solution:
def partitionArray(self,nums, k):
# write your code here
if nums == []:
return 0
left = 0
i = 0
while i < len(nums):
if nums[i] < k:
left += 1
i += 1
return left
I have a coding challenge next week as the first round interview. The HR said they will use Codility as the coding challenge platform. I have been practicing using the Codility Lessons.
My issue is that I often get a very high score on Correctness, but my Performance score, which measure time complexity, is horrible (I often get 0%).
Here's the question:
https://app.codility.com/programmers/lessons/5-prefix_sums/passing_cars/
My code is:
def solution(A):
N = len(A)
my_list = []
count = 0
for i in range(N):
if A[i] == 1:
continue
else:
my_list = A[i + 1:]
count = count + sum(my_list)
print(count)
return count
It is supposed to be O(N) but mine is O(N**2).
How can someone approach this question to solve it under the O(N) time complexity?
In general, when you look at an algorithm question, how do you come up with an approach?
You should not sum the entire array each time you find a zero. That makes it O(n^2). Instead note that every zero found will give a +1 for each following one:
def solution(A):
zeros = 0
passing = 0
for i in A:
if i == 0:
zeros += 1
else:
passing += zeros
return passing
You may check all codility solutions as well as passingcars example.
Don’t forget the 1000000000 limit.
def solution(a):
pc=0
fz=0
for e in a:
if pc>1000000000:
return -1
if e==0:
fz+=1
else:
pc+=fz
return pc
Regarding the above answer, it is correct but missing checking the cases where passing exceeds 1000000000.
Also, I found a smarter and simple way to count the pairs of cars that could be passed where you just count all existing ones inside the array from the beginning and inside the loop when you find any zero, you say Ok we could possibly pair all the ones with this zero (so we increase the count) and as we are already looping through the whole array, if we find one then we can simply remove that one from ones since we will never need it again.
It takes O(N) as a time complexity since you just need to loop once in the array.
def solution(A):
ones = A.count(1)
c = 0
for i in range(0, len(A)):
if A[i] == 0:
c += ones
else: ones -= 1
if c > 1000000000:
return -1
return c
In a loop, find indices of zeros in list and nb of ones in front of first zero. In another loop, find the next zero, reduce nOnesInFront by the index difference between current and previous zero
def solution(A):
count = 0; zeroIndices = []
nOnesInFront = 0; foundZero = False
for i in range(len(A)):
if A[i] == 0:
foundZero = True
zeroIndices.append(i)
elif foundZero: nOnesInFront += 1;
if nOnesInFront == 0: return 0 #no ones in front of a zero
if not zeroIndices: return 0 #no zeros
iPrev = zeroIndices[0]
count = nOnesInFront
for i in zeroIndices[1:]:
nOnesInFront -= (i-iPrev) - 1 #decrease nb of ones by the differnce between current and previous zero index
iPrev = i
count += nOnesInFront
if count > 1000000000: return -1
else: return count
Here are some tests cases to verify the solution:
print(solution([0, 1, 0, 1, 1])) # 5
print(solution([0, 1, 1, 0, 1])) # 4
print(solution([0])) # 0
print(solution([1])) # 0
print(solution([1, 0])) # 0
print(solution([0, 1])) # 1
print(solution([1, 0, 0])) # 0
print(solution([1, 0, 1])) # 1
print(solution([0, 0, 1])) # 2