Lost in Compilation

Given k-sorted array, find the minimum interval such that there is at least one element from each array within the interval. Eg. [1,10,14],[2,5,10],[3,40,50]. Output : 1-3 To solve this problem, we perform a k-way merge as described here . At each point of 'popping' an element from an array. We keep track of the minimum and maximum head element (the first element) from all the k-lists. The minimum and maximum will obviously contain the rest of the header elements of the k-arrays. As we keep doing this, we find the smallest interval (max - min). That will be our solution. Here's a pictorial working of the algorithm. And here's the Python code. Time Complexity : O(nlogk)

Problem - Given k-sorted lists, merge them into a single sorted list. A daft way of doing this would be to copy all the list into a new array and sorting the new array. ie O(n log(n)) The naive method would be to simply perform k-way merge similar to the auxiliary method in Merge Sort. But that is reduces the problem to a minimum selection from a list of k-elements. The Complexity of this algorithm is an abysmal O(nk). Here's how it looks in Python. We maintain an additional array called Index[1..k] to maintain the head of each list. We improve upon this by optimizing the minimum selection process by using a familiar data structure, the Heap! Using a MinHeap, we extract the minimum element from a list and then push the next element from the same list into the heap, until all the list get exhausted. This reduces the Time complexity to O(nlogk) since for each element we perform O(logk) operations on the heap. An important implementation detail is we need to keep track ...

Problem - Given an integer array A[1..n], find an instance of i,j,k where 0 < i < j < k <= n and A[i] < A[j] < A[k]. Let's start with the obvious solution, bruteforce every three element combination until we find a solution. Let's try to reduce this by searching left and right for each element, we search left for an element smaller than the current one, towards the right an element greater than the current one. When we find an element that has both such elements, we found the solution. The complexity of this solution is O(n^2). To reduce this even further, One can simply apply the longest increasing subsequence algorithm and break when we get an LIS of length 3. But the best algorithm that can find an LIS is O(nlogn) with O( n ) space . An O(nlogn) algorithm seems like an overkill! Can this be done in linear time? The Algorithm: We iterate over the array and keep track of two things. The minimum value iterated over (min) The minimum increa...

Problem - Given 4 arrays A,B,C,D. Find out if there exists an instance where A[i] + B[j] + C[k] + D[l] = 0 Like the Find the Triple problem, we're going to develop 4 algorithms to solve this. Starting with the naive O(n^4) solution. Then we proceed to eliminate the inner-most loop with a Binary Search, reducing the complexity to O(n^3 logn) Now, we replace the last 2 loops with the left-right traversal we did in the previous 3 posts. Now the complexity is O(n^3). Finally, we reduce the complexity to O(n^2 logn) at the cost of O(n^2) Space Complexity. We store every combination of A[i] + B[j] and store it in AB[]. Similarly we make CD[] out of C[i] + D[j]. So, AB = A x B CD = C x D We then sort AB and CD (which costs O(n^2 log(n^2)) ~ O(n^2 logn) ) and then run a left-right linear Algorithm on AB and CD. (Note : Their size is of the order O(n^2)) So the overall complexity is due to sorting the large array of size n^2. which is O(n^2 logn).

Problem : Given 3 Integer Arrays A,B,C. Find out if an instance exists where A[i] + B[j] + C[k] == 0. Very deceptive question but very similar to the  3SUM  Problem. The Naive solution is O(n^3). If you're a little clever, you can do a O(n^2 logn). At this point, you might give up assuming that this is pretty efficient. But then there is also a O(n^2) solution as well! Let's go from worst to best. The Naive solution is trivial. Try every combination until we hit a solution, if we don't there is no solution. So let's try to speed things up a bit, since the solution is already O(n^3), I think we can afford to sort any of the  arrays since nlogn = o(n^3). Therefore, we cleverly sort the Array C. Now in the third loop we replace the linear scan with a binary search to find (-A[i]-B[j]). The complexity is now reduced to O(n^2 logn) At this point, you've leveled up. The next algorithm might not be immediately apparent but works. In fact the method is simila...

Problem - Given an Array of integers, A. Find out if there exists a triple (i,j,k) such that A[i] + A[j] + A[k] == 0. The 3SUM  problem is very similar to the 2SUM  problem in many aspects. The solutions I'll be discussing are also very similar. I highly recommend you read the previous post first, since I'll explain only the differences in the algorithm from the previous post. Let's begin, We start with the naive algorithm. An O(n^3) solution with 3 nested loops each checking if the sum of the triple is 0. Since O(n^3) is the higher order term, we can sort the array in O(nlogn) and add a guard at the nested loops to prune of parts of the arrays. But the complexity still remains O(n^3). The code is pretty simple and similar to the naive algorithm of 2SUM. Moving on, we'll do the same thing we did in 2SUM, replace the inner-most linear search with a binary search. The Complexity now drops to O(n^2 logn) Now, the hash table method, this is strictly not ...

Problem : Given an array with distinct elements. Find out if there exists an instance where sum of two distinct elements is equal to a given constant K. Say, A = [1,2,3,4], K = 7. Output should be 3,4 The naive solution for this problem is pretty trivial. Brute force every pair-sum and check if the sum is K. You could be a little smart about this. You initially sort the array O(nlogn) and iterate the array pairwise and quit when the sum exceeds K, you can quit the inner loop since the array is sorted the sum can only increase. For the rest of the article, I'll be assuming K = 0, this doesn't affect the solutions in any way and it's trivial to introduce a new variable into the code without major changes. Here's the code, should be easy to follow... I'll be using Java today. Now that the naive solution is out of the way, let's try and do some clever stuff. So notice we can afford to sort the array since the brute solution was already O(n^2) (which ...