Given a two-dimensional array T of size NxN, filled with various natural numbers (They do not have to be sorted in any way as in the example below.). My task is to write a program that transforms the array in such a way that all elements lying above the main diagonal are larger than each element lying on the diagonal and all elements lying below the main diagonal are to be smaller than each element on the diagonal.
For example:
T looks like this:
[2,3,5][7,11,13][17,19,23] and one of the possible solutions is:
[13,19,23][3,7,17][5,2,11]
I have no clue how to do this. Would anyone have an idea what algorithm should be used here?
Let's say the matrix is NxN.
Put all N² values inside an array.
Sort the array with whatever method you prefer (ascending order).
In your final array, the (N²-N)/2 first values go below the diagonal, the following N values go to the diagonal, and the final (N²-N)/2 values go above the diagonal.
The following pseudo-code should do the job:
mat <- array[N][N] // To be initialized.
vec <- array[N*N]
for i : 0 to (N-1)
for j : 0 to (N-1)
vec[i*N+j]=mat[i][j]
next j
next i
sort(vec)
p_below <- 0
p_diag <- (N*N-N)/2
p_above <- (N*N+N)/2
for i : 0 to (N-1)
for j : 0 to (N-1)
if (i>j)
mat[i][j] = vec[p_above]
p_above <- p_above + 1
endif
if (i<j)
mat[i][j] = vec[p_below]
p_below <- p_below + 1
endif
if (i=j)
mat[i][j] = vec[p_diag]
p_diag <- p_diag + 1
endif
next j
next i
Code can be heavily optimized by sorting directly the matrix, using a (quite complex) custom sort operator, so it can be sorted "in place". Technically, you'll do a bijection between the matrix indices to a partitioned set of indices representing "below diagonal", "diagonal" and "above diagonal" indices.
But I'm unsure that it can be considered as an algorithm in itself, because it will be highly dependent on the language used AND on how you stored, internally, your matrix (and how iterators/indices are used). I could write one in C++, but I lack knownledge to give you such an operator in Python.
Obviously, if you can't use a standard sorting function (because it can't work on anything else but an array), then you can write your own with the tricky comparison builtin the algorithm.
For such small matrixes, even a bubble-sort can work properly, but obviously implementing at least a quicksort would be better.
Elements about optimizing:
First, we speak about the trivial bijection from matrix coordinate [x][y] to [i]: i=x+y*N. The invert is obviously x=floor(i/N) & y=i mod N. Then, you can parse the matrix as a vector.
This is already what I do in the first part initializing vec, BTW.
With matrix coordinates, it's easy:
Diagonal is all cells where x=y.
The "below" partition is everywhere x<y.
The "above" partition is everywhere x>y.
Look at coordinates in the below 3x3 matrix, it's quite evident when you know it.
0,0 1,0 2,0
0,1 1,1 2,1
0,2 1,2 2,2
We already know that the ordered vector will be composed of three parts: first the "below" partition, then the "diagonal" partition, then the "above" partition.
The next bijection is way more tricky, since it requires either a piecewise linear function OR a look-up table. The first requires no additional memory but will use more CPU power, the second use as much memory as the matrix but will require less CPU power.
As always, optimization for speed often cost memory. If memory is scarse because you use huge matrixes, then you'll prefer a function.
In order to shorten a bit, I'll explain only for "below" partition. In the vector, the (N-1) first elements will be the ones belonging to the first column. Then, we'll have (N-2) elements for the 2nd column, (N-3) for the third, until we had only 1 element for the (N-1)th column. You see the scheme, sum of the number of elements and the column (zero-based index) is always (N-1).
I won't write the function, because it's quite complex and, honestly, it won't help so much to understand. Simply know that converting from matrix indices to vector is "quite easy".
The opposite is more tricky and CPU-intensive, and it SHOULD use a (N-1) element vector to store where each column starts within the vector to GREATLY speed up the process. Thanks, this vector can also be used (from end to begin) for the "above" partition, so it won't burn too much memory.
Now, you can sort your "vector" normally, simply by chaining the two bijection together with the vector index, and you'll get a matrix cell instead. As long as the sorting algorithm is stable (that's usually the case), it will works and will sort your matrix "in place", at the expense of a lot of mathematical computing to "route" the linear indexes to matrix indexes.
Please note that, despite we speak about bijections, we need ONLY the "vector to matrix" formulas. The "matrix to vector" are important - it MUST be a bijection! - but you won't use them, since you'll sort directly the (virtual) vector from 0 to N²-1.
Can someone help explain how can building a heap be O(n) complexity?
Inserting an item into a heap is O(log n), and the insert is repeated n/2 times (the remainder are leaves, and can't violate the heap property). So, this means the complexity should be O(n log n), I would think.
In other words, for each item we "heapify", it has the potential to have to filter down (i.e., sift down) once for each level for the heap so far (which is log n levels).
What am I missing?
I think there are several questions buried in this topic:
How do you implement buildHeap so it runs in O(n) time?
How do you show that buildHeap runs in O(n) time when implemented correctly?
Why doesn't that same logic work to make heap sort run in O(n) time rather than O(n log n)?
How do you implement buildHeap so it runs in O(n) time?
Often, answers to these questions focus on the difference between siftUp and siftDown. Making the correct choice between siftUp and siftDown is critical to get O(n) performance for buildHeap, but does nothing to help one understand the difference between buildHeap and heapSort in general. Indeed, proper implementations of both buildHeap and heapSort will only use siftDown. The siftUp operation is only needed to perform inserts into an existing heap, so it would be used to implement a priority queue using a binary heap, for example.
I've written this to describe how a max heap works. This is the type of heap typically used for heap sort or for a priority queue where higher values indicate higher priority. A min heap is also useful; for example, when retrieving items with integer keys in ascending order or strings in alphabetical order. The principles are exactly the same; simply switch the sort order.
The heap property specifies that each node in a binary heap must be at least as large as both of its children. In particular, this implies that the largest item in the heap is at the root. Sifting down and sifting up are essentially the same operation in opposite directions: move an offending node until it satisfies the heap property:
siftDown swaps a node that is too small with its largest child (thereby moving it down) until it is at least as large as both nodes below it.
siftUp swaps a node that is too large with its parent (thereby moving it up) until it is no larger than the node above it.
The number of operations required for siftDown and siftUp is proportional to the distance the node may have to move. For siftDown, it is the distance to the bottom of the tree, so siftDown is expensive for nodes at the top of the tree. With siftUp, the work is proportional to the distance to the top of the tree, so siftUp is expensive for nodes at the bottom of the tree. Although both operations are O(log n) in the worst case, in a heap, only one node is at the top whereas half the nodes lie in the bottom layer. So it shouldn't be too surprising that if we have to apply an operation to every node, we would prefer siftDown over siftUp.
The buildHeap function takes an array of unsorted items and moves them until they all satisfy the heap property, thereby producing a valid heap. There are two approaches one might take for buildHeap using the siftUp and siftDown operations we've described.
Start at the top of the heap (the beginning of the array) and call siftUp on each item. At each step, the previously sifted items (the items before the current item in the array) form a valid heap, and sifting the next item up places it into a valid position in the heap. After sifting up each node, all items satisfy the heap property.
Or, go in the opposite direction: start at the end of the array and move backwards towards the front. At each iteration, you sift an item down until it is in the correct location.
Which implementation for buildHeap is more efficient?
Both of these solutions will produce a valid heap. Unsurprisingly, the more efficient one is the second operation that uses siftDown.
Let h = log n represent the height of the heap. The work required for the siftDown approach is given by the sum
(0 * n/2) + (1 * n/4) + (2 * n/8) + ... + (h * 1).
Each term in the sum has the maximum distance a node at the given height will have to move (zero for the bottom layer, h for the root) multiplied by the number of nodes at that height. In contrast, the sum for calling siftUp on each node is
(h * n/2) + ((h-1) * n/4) + ((h-2)*n/8) + ... + (0 * 1).
It should be clear that the second sum is larger. The first term alone is hn/2 = 1/2 n log n, so this approach has complexity at best O(n log n).
How do we prove the sum for the siftDown approach is indeed O(n)?
One method (there are other analyses that also work) is to turn the finite sum into an infinite series and then use Taylor series. We may ignore the first term, which is zero:
If you aren't sure why each of those steps works, here is a justification for the process in words:
The terms are all positive, so the finite sum must be smaller than the infinite sum.
The series is equal to a power series evaluated at x=1/2.
That power series is equal to (a constant times) the derivative of the Taylor series for f(x)=1/(1-x).
x=1/2 is within the interval of convergence of that Taylor series.
Therefore, we can replace the Taylor series with 1/(1-x), differentiate, and evaluate to find the value of the infinite series.
Since the infinite sum is exactly n, we conclude that the finite sum is no larger, and is therefore, O(n).
Why does heap sort require O(n log n) time?
If it is possible to run buildHeap in linear time, why does heap sort require O(n log n) time? Well, heap sort consists of two stages. First, we call buildHeap on the array, which requires O(n) time if implemented optimally. The next stage is to repeatedly delete the largest item in the heap and put it at the end of the array. Because we delete an item from the heap, there is always an open spot just after the end of the heap where we can store the item. So heap sort achieves a sorted order by successively removing the next largest item and putting it into the array starting at the last position and moving towards the front. It is the complexity of this last part that dominates in heap sort. The loop looks likes this:
for (i = n - 1; i > 0; i--) {
arr[i] = deleteMax();
}
Clearly, the loop runs O(n) times (n - 1 to be precise, the last item is already in place). The complexity of deleteMax for a heap is O(log n). It is typically implemented by removing the root (the largest item left in the heap) and replacing it with the last item in the heap, which is a leaf, and therefore one of the smallest items. This new root will almost certainly violate the heap property, so you have to call siftDown until you move it back into an acceptable position. This also has the effect of moving the next largest item up to the root. Notice that, in contrast to buildHeap where for most of the nodes we are calling siftDown from the bottom of the tree, we are now calling siftDown from the top of the tree on each iteration! Although the tree is shrinking, it doesn't shrink fast enough: The height of the tree stays constant until you have removed the first half of the nodes (when you clear out the bottom layer completely). Then for the next quarter, the height is h - 1. So the total work for this second stage is
h*n/2 + (h-1)*n/4 + ... + 0 * 1.
Notice the switch: now the zero work case corresponds to a single node and the h work case corresponds to half the nodes. This sum is O(n log n) just like the inefficient version of buildHeap that is implemented using siftUp. But in this case, we have no choice since we are trying to sort and we require the next largest item be removed next.
In summary, the work for heap sort is the sum of the two stages: O(n) time for buildHeap and O(n log n) to remove each node in order, so the complexity is O(n log n). You can prove (using some ideas from information theory) that for a comparison-based sort, O(n log n) is the best you could hope for anyway, so there's no reason to be disappointed by this or expect heap sort to achieve the O(n) time bound that buildHeap does.
Your analysis is correct. However, it is not tight.
It is not really easy to explain why building a heap is a linear operation, you should better read it.
A great analysis of the algorithm can be seen here.
The main idea is that in the build_heap algorithm the actual heapify cost is not O(log n)for all elements.
When heapify is called, the running time depends on how far an element might move down in the tree before the process terminates. In other words, it depends on the height of the element in the heap. In the worst case, the element might go down all the way to the leaf level.
Let us count the work done level by level.
At the bottommost level, there are 2^(h)nodes, but we do not call heapify on any of these, so the work is 0. At the next level there are 2^(h − 1) nodes, and each might move down by 1 level. At the 3rd level from the bottom, there are 2^(h − 2) nodes, and each might move down by 2 levels.
As you can see not all heapify operations are O(log n), this is why you are getting O(n).
Intuitively:
"The complexity should be O(nLog n)... for each item we "heapify", it has the potential to have to filter down once for each level for the heap so far (which is log n levels)."
Not quite. Your logic does not produce a tight bound -- it over estimates the complexity of each heapify. If built from the bottom up, insertion (heapify) can be much less than O(log(n)). The process is as follows:
( Step 1 ) The first n/2 elements go on the bottom row of the heap. h=0, so heapify is not needed.
( Step 2 ) The next n/22 elements go on the row 1 up from the bottom. h=1, heapify filters 1 level down.
( Step i )
The next n/2i elements go in row i up from the bottom. h=i, heapify filters i levels down.
( Step log(n) ) The last n/2log2(n) = 1 element goes in row log(n) up from the bottom. h=log(n), heapify filters log(n) levels down.
NOTICE: that after step one, 1/2 of the elements (n/2) are already in the heap, and we didn't even need to call heapify once. Also, notice that only a single element, the root, actually incurs the full log(n) complexity.
Theoretically:
The Total steps N to build a heap of size n, can be written out mathematically.
At height i, we've shown (above) that there will be n/2i+1 elements that need to call heapify, and we know heapify at height i is O(i). This gives:
The solution to the last summation can be found by taking the derivative of both sides of the well known geometric series equation:
Finally, plugging in x = 1/2 into the above equation yields 2. Plugging this into the first equation gives:
Thus, the total number of steps is of size O(n)
There are already some great answers but I would like to add a little visual explanation
Now, take a look at the image, there are
n/2^1 green nodes with height 0 (here 23/2 = 12)
n/2^2 red nodes with height 1 (here 23/4 = 6)
n/2^3 blue node with height 2 (here 23/8 = 3)
n/2^4 purple nodes with height 3 (here 23/16 = 2)
so there are n/2^(h+1) nodes for height h
To find the time complexity lets count the amount of work done or max no of iterations performed by each node
now it can be noticed that each node can perform(atmost) iterations == height of the node
Green = n/2^1 * 0 (no iterations since no children)
red = n/2^2 * 1 (heapify will perform atmost one swap for each red node)
blue = n/2^3 * 2 (heapify will perform atmost two swaps for each blue node)
purple = n/2^4 * 3 (heapify will perform atmost three swaps for each purple node)
so for any nodes with height h maximum work done is n/2^(h+1) * h
Now total work done is
->(n/2^1 * 0) + (n/2^2 * 1)+ (n/2^3 * 2) + (n/2^4 * 3) +...+ (n/2^(h+1) * h)
-> n * ( 0 + 1/4 + 2/8 + 3/16 +...+ h/2^(h+1) )
now for any value of h, the sequence
-> ( 0 + 1/4 + 2/8 + 3/16 +...+ h/2^(h+1) )
will never exceed 1
Thus the time complexity will never exceed O(n) for building heap
It would be O(n log n) if you built the heap by repeatedly inserting elements. However, you can create a new heap more efficiently by inserting the elements in arbitrary order and then applying an algorithm to "heapify" them into the proper order (depending on the type of heap of course).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_heap, "Building a heap" for an example. In this case you essentially work up from the bottom level of the tree, swapping parent and child nodes until the heap conditions are satisfied.
As we know the height of a heap is log(n), where n is the total number of elements.Lets represent it as h
When we perform heapify operation, then the elements at last level(h) won't move even a single step.
The number of elements at second last level(h-1) is 2h-1 and they can move at max 1 level(during heapify). Similarly, for the ith, level we have 2i elements which can move h-i positions.
Therefore total number of moves:
S= 2h*0+2h-1*1+2h-2*2+...20*h
S=2h {1/2 + 2/22 + 3/23+ ... h/2h} -------------------------------------------------1
this is AGP series, to solve this divide both sides by 2
S/2=2h {1/22 + 2/23+ ... h/2h+1} -------------------------------------------------2
subtracting equation 2 from 1 gives
S/2=2h {1/2+1/22 + 1/23+ ...+1/2h+ h/2h+1}
S=2h+1 {1/2+1/22 + 1/23+ ...+1/2h+ h/2h+1}
Now 1/2+1/22 + 1/23+ ...+1/2h is decreasing GP whose sum is less than 1 (when h tends to infinity, the sum tends to 1). In further analysis, let's take an upper bound on the sum which is 1.
This gives:
S=2h+1{1+h/2h+1} =2h+1+h ~2h+h
as h=log(n), 2h=n
Therefore S=n+log(n) T(C)=O(n)
While building a heap, lets say you're taking a bottom up approach.
You take each element and compare it with its children to check if the pair conforms to the heap rules. So, therefore, the leaves get included in the heap for free. That is because they have no children.
Moving upwards, the worst case scenario for the node right above the leaves would be 1 comparison (At max they would be compared with just one generation of children)
Moving further up, their immediate parents can at max be compared with two generations of children.
Continuing in the same direction, you'll have log(n) comparisons for the root in the worst case scenario. and log(n)-1 for its immediate children, log(n)-2 for their immediate children and so on.
So summing it all up, you arrive on something like log(n) + {log(n)-1}*2 + {log(n)-2}*4 + ..... + 1*2^{(logn)-1} which is nothing but O(n).
We get the runtime for the heap build by figuring out the maximum move each node can take.
So we need to know how many nodes are in each row and how far from their can each node go.
Starting from the root node each next row has double the nodes than the previous row has, so by answering how often can we double the number of nodes until we don't have any nodes left we get the height of the tree.
Or in mathematical terms the height of the tree is log2(n), n being the length of the array.
To calculate the nodes in one row we start from the back, we know n/2 nodes are at the bottom, so by dividing by 2 we get the previous row and so on.
Based on this we get this formula for the Siftdown approach:
(0 * n/2) + (1 * n/4) + (2 * n/8) + ... + (log2(n) * 1)
The term in the last paranthesis is the height of the tree multiplied by the one node that is at the root, the term in the first paranthesis are all the nodes in the bottom row multiplied by the length they can travel,0.
Same formula in smart:
Bringing the n back in we have 2 * n, 2 can be discarded because its a constant and tada we have the worst case runtime of the Siftdown approach: n.
Short Answer
Building a binary heap will take O(n) time with Heapify().
When we add the elements in a heap one by one and keep satisfying the heap property (max heap or min heap) at every step, then the total time complexity will be O(nlogn).
Because the general structure of a binary heap is of a complete binary tree. Hence the height of heap is h = O(logn). So the insertion time of an element in the heap is equivalent to the height of the tree ie. O(h) = O(logn). For n elements this will take O(nlogn) time.
Consider another approach now.
I assume that we have a min heap for simplicity.
So every node should be smaller than its children.
Add all the elements in the skeleton of a complete binary tree. This will take O(n) time.
Now we just have to somehow satisfy the min-heap property.
Since all the leaf elements have no children, they already satisfy the heap property. The total no of leaf elements is ceil(n/2) where n is the total number of elements present in the tree.
Now for every internal node, if it is greater than its children, swap it with the minimum child in a bottom to top way. It will take O(1) time for every internal node. Note: We will not swap the values up to the root like we do in insertion. We just swap it once so that subtree rooted at that node is a proper min heap.
In the array-based implementation of binary heap, we have parent(i) = ceil((i-1)/2) and children of i are given by 2*i + 1 and 2*i + 2. So by observation we can say that the last ceil(n/2) elements in the array would be leaf nodes. The more the depth, the more the index of a node. We will repeat Step 4 for array[n/2], array[n/2 - 1].....array[0]. In this way we ensure that we do this in the bottom to top approach. Overall we will eventually maintain the min heap property.
Step 4 for all the n/2 elements will take O(n) time.
So our total time complexity of heapify using this approach will be O(n) + O(n) ~ O(n).
In case of building the heap, we start from height,
logn -1 (where logn is the height of tree of n elements).
For each element present at height 'h', we go at max upto (logn -h) height down.
So total number of traversal would be:-
T(n) = sigma((2^(logn-h))*h) where h varies from 1 to logn
T(n) = n((1/2)+(2/4)+(3/8)+.....+(logn/(2^logn)))
T(n) = n*(sigma(x/(2^x))) where x varies from 1 to logn
and according to the [sources][1]
function in the bracket approaches to 2 at infinity.
Hence T(n) ~ O(n)
Successive insertions can be described by:
T = O(log(1) + log(2) + .. + log(n)) = O(log(n!))
By starling approximation, n! =~ O(n^(n + O(1))), therefore T =~ O(nlog(n))
Hope this helps, the optimal way O(n) is using the build heap algorithm for a given set (ordering doesn't matter).
Basically, work is done only on non-leaf nodes while building a heap...and the work done is the amount of swapping down to satisfy heap condition...in other words (in worst case) the amount is proportional to the height of the node...all in all the complexity of the problem is proportional to the sum of heights of all the non-leaf nodes..which is (2^h+1 - 1)-h-1=n-h-1= O(n)
#bcorso has already demonstrated the proof of the complexity analysis. But for the sake of those still learning complexity analysis, I have this to add:
The basis of your original mistake is due to a misinterpretation of the meaning of the statement, "insertion into a heap takes O(log n) time". Insertion into a heap is indeed O(log n), but you have to recognise that n is the size of the heap during the insertion.
In the context of inserting n objects into a heap, the complexity of the ith insertion is O(log n_i) where n_i is the size of the heap as at insertion i. Only the last insertion has a complexity of O (log n).
Lets suppose you have N elements in a heap.
Then its height would be Log(N)
Now you want to insert another element, then the complexity would be : Log(N), we have to compare all the way UP to the root.
Now you are having N+1 elements & height = Log(N+1)
Using induction technique it can be proved that the complexity of insertion would be ∑logi.
Now using
log a + log b = log ab
This simplifies to : ∑logi=log(n!)
which is actually O(NlogN)
But
we are doing something wrong here, as in all the case we do not reach at the top.
Hence while executing most of the times we may find that, we are not going even half way up the tree. Whence, this bound can be optimized to have another tighter bound by using mathematics given in answers above.
This realization came to me after a detail though & experimentation on Heaps.
I really like explanation by Jeremy west.... another approach which is really easy for understanding is given here http://courses.washington.edu/css343/zander/NotesProbs/heapcomplexity
since, buildheap depends using depends on heapify and shiftdown approach is used which depends upon sum of the heights of all nodes. So, to find the sum of height of nodes which is given by
S = summation from i = 0 to i = h of (2^i*(h-i)), where h = logn is height of the tree
solving s, we get s = 2^(h+1) - 1 - (h+1)
since, n = 2^(h+1) - 1
s = n - h - 1 = n- logn - 1
s = O(n), and so complexity of buildheap is O(n).
"The linear time bound of build Heap, can be shown by computing the sum of the heights of all the nodes in the heap, which is the maximum number of dashed lines.
For the perfect binary tree of height h containing N = 2^(h+1) – 1 nodes, the sum of the heights of the nodes is N – H – 1.
Thus it is O(N)."
Proof of O(n)
The proof isn't fancy, and quite straightforward, I only proved the case for a full binary tree, the result can be generalized for a complete binary tree.
We can use another optimal solution to build a heap instead of inserting each element repeatedly. It goes as follows:
Arbitrarily putting the n elements into the array to respect the
shape property of heap.
Starting from the lowest level and moving upwards, sift the root of
each subtree downward as in the heapify-down process until the heap
property is restored.
This process can be illustrated with the following image:
Next, let’s analyze the time complexity of this above process. Suppose there are n elements in the heap, and the height of the heap is h (for the heap in the above image, the height is 3). Then we should have the following relationship:
When there is only one node in the last level then n = 2^h
. And when the last level of the tree is fully filled then n = 2^(h+1).
And start from the bottom as level 0 (the root node is level h), in level j, there are at most 2^(h-j) nodes. And each node at most takes j times swap operation. So in level j, the total number of operation is j*2^(h-j).
So the total running time for building the heap is proportional to:
If we factor out the 2^h term, then we get:
As we know, ∑j/2ʲ is a series converges to 2 (in detail, you can refer to this wiki).
Using this we have:
Based on the condition 2^h <= n, so we have:
Now we prove that building a heap is a linear operation.
def check_set(S, k):
S2 = k - S
set_from_S2=set(S2.flatten())
for x in S:
if(x in set_from_S2):
return True
return False
I have a given integer k. I want to check if k is equal to sum of two element of array S.
S = np.array([1,2,3,4])
k = 8
It should return False in this case because there are no two elements of S having sum of 8. The above code work like 8 = 4 + 4 so it returned True
I can't find an algorithm to solve this problem with complexity of O(n).
Can someone help me?
You have to account for multiple instances of the same item, so set is not good choice here.
Instead you can exploit dictionary with value_field = number_of_keys (as variant - from collections import Counter)
A = [3,1,2,3,4]
Cntr = {}
for x in A:
if x in Cntr:
Cntr[x] += 1
else:
Cntr[x] = 1
#k = 11
k = 8
ans = False
for x in A:
if (k-x) in Cntr:
if k == 2 * x:
if Cntr[k-x] > 1:
ans = True
break
else:
ans = True
break
print(ans)
Returns True for k=5,6 (I added one more 3) and False for k=8,11
Adding onto MBo's answer.
"Optimal" can be an ambiguous term in terms of algorithmics, as there is often a compromise between how fast the algorithm runs and how memory-efficient it is. Sometimes we may also be interested in either worst-case resource consumption or in average resource consumption. We'll loop at worst-case here because it's simpler and roughly equivalent to average in our scenario.
Let's call n the length of our array, and let's consider 3 examples.
Example 1
We start with a very naive algorithm for our problem, with two nested loops that iterate over the array, and check for every two items of different indices if they sum to the target number.
Time complexity: worst-case scenario (where the answer is False or where it's True but that we find it on the last pair of items we check) has n^2 loop iterations. If you're familiar with the big-O notation, we'll say the algorithm's time complexity is O(n^2), which basically means that in terms of our input size n, the time it takes to solve the algorithm grows more or less like n^2 with multiplicative factor (well, technically the notation means "at most like n^2 with a multiplicative factor, but it's a generalized abuse of language to use it as "more or less like" instead).
Space complexity (memory consumption): we only store an array, plus a fixed set of objects whose sizes do not depend on n (everything Python needs to run, the call stack, maybe two iterators and/or some temporary variables). The part of the memory consumption that grows with n is therefore just the size of the array, which is n times the amount of memory required to store an integer in an array (let's call that sizeof(int)).
Conclusion: Time is O(n^2), Memory is n*sizeof(int) (+O(1), that is, up to an additional constant factor, which doesn't matter to us, and which we'll ignore from now on).
Example 2
Let's consider the algorithm in MBo's answer.
Time complexity: much, much better than in Example 1. We start by creating a dictionary. This is done in a loop over n. Setting keys in a dictionary is a constant-time operation in proper conditions, so that the time taken by each step of that first loop does not depend on n. Therefore, for now we've used O(n) in terms of time complexity. Now we only have one remaining loop over n. The time spent accessing elements our dictionary is independent of n, so once again, the total complexity is O(n). Combining our two loops together, since they both grow like n up to a multiplicative factor, so does their sum (up to a different multiplicative factor). Total: O(n).
Memory: Basically the same as before, plus a dictionary of n elements. For the sake of simplicity, let's consider that these elements are integers (we could have used booleans), and forget about some of the aspects of dictionaries to only count the size used to store the keys and the values. There are n integer keys and n integer values to store, which uses 2*n*sizeof(int) in terms of memory. Add to that what we had before and we have a total of 3*n*sizeof(int).
Conclusion: Time is O(n), Memory is 3*n*sizeof(int). The algorithm is considerably faster when n grows, but uses three times more memory than example 1. In some weird scenarios where almost no memory is available (embedded systems maybe), this 3*n*sizeof(int) might simply be too much, and you might not be able to use this algorithm (admittedly, it's probably never going to be a real issue).
Example 3
Can we find a trade-off between Example 1 and Example 2?
One way to do that is to replicate the same kind of nested loop structure as in Example 1, but with some pre-processing to replace the inner loop with something faster. To do that, we sort the initial array, in place. Done with well-chosen algorithms, this has a time-complexity of O(n*log(n)) and negligible memory usage.
Once we have sorted our array, we write our outer loop (which is a regular loop over the whole array), and then inside that outer loop, use dichotomy to search for the number we're missing to reach our target k. This dichotomy approach would have a memory consumption of O(log(n)), and its time complexity would be O(log(n)) as well.
Time complexity: The pre-processing sort is O(n*log(n)). Then in the main part of the algorithm, we have n calls to our O(log(n)) dichotomy search, which totals to O(n*log(n)). So, overall, O(n*log(n)).
Memory: Ignoring the constant parts, we have the memory for our array (n*sizeof(int)) plus the memory for our call stack in the dichotomy search (O(log(n))). Total: n*sizeof(int) + O(log(n)).
Conclusion: Time is O(n*log(n)), Memory is n*sizeof(int) + O(log(n)). Memory is almost as small as in Example 1. Time complexity is slightly more than in Example 2. In scenarios where the Example 2 cannot be used because we lack memory, the next best thing in terms of speed would realistically be Example 3, which is almost as fast as Example 2 and probably has enough room to run if the very slow Example 1 does.
Overall conclusion
This answer was just to show that "optimal" is context-dependent in algorithmics. It's very unlikely that in this particular example, one would choose to implement Example 3. In general, you'd see either Example 1 if n is so small that one would choose whatever is simplest to design and fastest to code, or Example 2 if n is a bit larger and we want speed. But if you look at the wikipedia page I linked for sorting algorithms, you'll see that none of them is best at everything. They all have scenarios where they could be replaced with something better.
The question is pretty much in the title, but say I have a list L
L = [1,2,3,4,5]
min(L) = 1 here. Now I remove 4. The min is still 1. Then I remove 2. The min is still 1. Then I remove 1. The min is now 3. Then I remove 3. The min is now 5, and so on.
I am wondering if there is a good way to keep track of the min of the list at all times without needing to do min(L) or scanning through the entire list, etc.
There is an efficiency cost to actually removing the items from the list because it has to move everything else over. Re-sorting the list each time is expensive, too. Is there a way around this?
To remove a random element you need to know what elements have not been removed yet.
To know the minimum element, you need to sort or scan the items.
A min heap implemented as an array neatly solves both problems. The cost to remove an item is O(log N) and the cost to find the min is O(1). The items are stored contiguously in an array, so choosing one at random is very easy, O(1).
The min heap is described on this Wikipedia page
BTW, if the data are large, you can leave them in place and store pointers or indexes in the min heap and adjust the comparison operator accordingly.
Google for self-balancing binary search trees. Building one from the initial list takes O(n lg n) time, and finding and removing an arbitrary item will take O(lg n) (instead of O(n) for finding/removing from a simple list). A smallest item will always appear in the root of the tree.
This question may be useful. It provides links to several implementation of various balanced binary search trees. The advice to use a hash table does not apply well to your case, since it does not address maintaining a minimum item.
Here's a solution that need O(N lg N) preprocessing time + O(lg N) update time and O(lg(n)*lg(n)) delete time.
Preprocessing:
step 1: sort the L
step 2: for each item L[i], map L[i]->i
step 3: Build a Binary Indexed Tree or segment tree where for every 1<=i<=length of L, BIT[i]=1 and keep the sum of the ranges.
Query type delete:
Step 1: if an item x is said to be removed, with a binary search on array L (where L is sorted) or from the mapping find its index. set BIT[index[x]] = 0 and update all the ranges. Runtime: O(lg N)
Query type findMin:
Step 1: do a binary search over array L. for every mid, find the sum on BIT from 1-mid. if BIT[mid]>0 then we know some value<=mid is still alive. So we set hi=mid-1. otherwise we set low=mid+1. Runtime: O(lg**2N)
Same can be done with Segment tree.
Edit: If I'm not wrong per query can be processed in O(1) with Linked List
If sorting isn't in your best interest, I would suggest only do comparisons where you need to do them. If you remove elements that are not the old minimum, and you aren't inserting any new elements, there isn't a re-scan necessary for a minimum value.
Can you give us some more information about the processing going on that you are trying to do?
Comment answer: You don't have to compute min(L). Just keep track of its index and then only re-run the scan for min(L) when you remove at(or below) the old index (and make sure you track it accordingly).
Your current approach of rescanning when the minimum is removed is O(1)-time in expectation for each removal (assuming every item is equally likely to be removed).
Given a list of n items, a rescan is necessary with probability 1/n, so the expected work at each step is n * 1/n = O(1).