|
Just adding together numbers is apt to cause some confusion as bits carry from one place to the next. For n=3 or n=4 I would think it would be best to do something like:
for (i=0; i<16; i++)
{
if (x & (2 << i))
{
count1[i] ^= (count0[i] & x);
count0[i] ^= x;
}
}
That will indicate whether a bit is set in 0, 1, 2, 3 (mod 4) of the missing numbers that have a particular bit set. The case where a bit is missing in all four numbers can be resolved by noting that there must be some other bit which does not appear in all four numbers, so the count0/1[] values for that bit will show that it's missing in at least some numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Modify the process slightly to use one of supercat's ideas, as well as having 17 sums, also have 17 counts, so that you know how many are in each of the Sn sums. As well, this may not be necessary, but I'm lazy, so set a flag to detect 0.
For n=3, if 0 is missing treat as n=2, done. Otherwise if any of the Sn is only missing one number, then you get one missing number directly, simply add it back in then you can process as for 2. If any of the Sn is missing two numbers then as E-S gives you a+b+c then you can work out one number, add it back in and process for 2. Done. As the numbers are not all the same, all the sums can't be down by 0 or 3.
For n=4, if 0 is missing treat as n=3, done. Otherwise if any of the Sn is only missing one number, then you get one missing number directly, simply add it back in then you can process as for 3. Done. Otherwise if any of the Sn is missing three numbers, then you get one missing number from a+b+c+d -(a+b+c), so process as if one found. Done. Otherwise all are missing either 0, 2 or 4. Can anyone with more time than me show that under these conditions you can get three different pairs? My guess is that it is likely.
[edit] I guessed wrongly - {1,3,5,7} breaks it. [/edit]
Peter
"Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
modified on Sunday, December 21, 2008 9:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
1,3,5,7 would yield a total of 16 missing, a bit 0 subtotal of 16 (1+3+5+7), a bit 1 subtotal of 10 (3+7), and a bit 2 subtotal of 12 (5+7). Even the total and bit 0 subtotal suffice to show that the numbers are 1, 3, 5, and 7; since the bit 0 subtotal matches the total, all four numbers have to be odd. The smallest 4 odd numbers are 1, 3, 5, and 7; if any other numbers were chosen the total would exceed 16.
A breaking set of numbers would be {1,6,10,13) or (2,5,9,14). The carries from each bit position to the next serve to confuse things; using modulo arithmetic on each bit avoids that complication.
|
|
|
|
|
Storing the list of "already found" numbers isn't a huge issue if you say encode them as runs. However the degenerate cases in this problem are quite nasty indeed. It wouldnt surprise me if this is actually equivalent to a restricted case of the subset-sum problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Churchill wrote: Storing the list of "already found" numbers isn't a huge issue if you say encode them as runs.
After having read 32768 numbers from a set of 65536 possible values, there will be more than 2^65,527 possible states. No sort of run-length coding will get the worst-case (or even average-case) storage requirement below 65,527 bits (8191 bytes). The only way to make the problem workable is to rely upon the fact that the source of numbers also has considerable state information (no number will be read more than once). If there are four missing numbers, it's only necessary for the reader to distinguish (65536*65535*65534*65533)/4! different states at any time while reading the file (not counting the loop index).
|
|
|
|
|
Calculate the index sum and the value sum for for the first index.
Compute the difference between the sums - if its zero then the first number is not missing.
Increment the index and recalculate the index sum and the value sum.
Again compute the difference between the sums and also the 2nd difference - if this value is zero then the first missing number has not been found, if the second difference is 1 then the current index is the first missing number.
Continue until the second difference is 2 then the index at this point is the second missing number. etc.
Only 3 variables required (index, index sum, value sum) differences are temporary storage and it works for any number of missing values in a single pass!!
Apathy Rules - I suppose...
Its not the things you fear that come to get you but all the things that you don't expect
|
|
|
|
|
There are 100 unrepeated numbers, the sum of which will be (1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 100). The summation equivalent to factorial - not sure if there is a proper mathematical name for it. If you then add up all the numbers in your array, the difference between these two answers must be the "rogue" number. I've not tried it but I think that's it.
Edit: Ah! ... just realised there were loads of other answers on the next page ... so this is history not news 
|
|
|
|
|
Papadimitriou and Steiglitz wrote the following [see citation, section 15.2]:
"A combinatorial optimization problem is thus the following form of computational problem.
"Given representations of the parameters... find the optimal feasible solution.
"We call this the optimization version of the problem. However, a combinatorial optimization problem can also be posed in the following, more relaxed, form.
"Given [the parameters]... find the cost of the optimal solution.
"This will be referred to as the evaluation version of a combinatorial optimization problem. It is immediate that, under the assumption that... [the cost] is not too hard to compute--the evaluation version of a combinatorial optimization problem cannot be much harder that the optimization version."
I omitted some notation and terms, the definitions of which were earlier in the chapter. As I understand it, they are saying that these two versions are pretty much the same, though the evaluation version may be a bit harder. I don't see how that could be. The evaluation version only seeks the cost of the optimal solution, whereas the optimization version seeks the optimal solution itself. In order to find that optimal solution, certainly you must need to compute the cost of it. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Alex
Citation: Papadimitriou & Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization, Dover, 1982.
|
|
|
|
|
There may be a shortcut that lets you calculate the cost of an optimal solution (or at least prove some bounds on it) without actually calculating it.
This is similar to an existence proof in mathematics, where it's shown that a solution exists without actually finding it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I need to find some way to get the LCS for some special strings.
Imagine we have two CSV files (tables where , column delimiter)
1)
a b c,d e f
One row with 2 columns
2)
a,d
b,e
c,f
Three rows with 2 columns
When i'm trying to get the regular LCS i'm missing a lot of data:
a b c,d e f
a, d b,e c,f
LCS:
a b c f
But it must be totally equal, because three rows can be fitted in one.
Can someone suggest some algorithm, or some preprocessing method?
The main pain that there can be adds and deletes, so i need to find some longest path.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
follow this algorithm ; What is there bigO
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0 ; i < n ; i++){
for(int j = 0 ; j < n*n; j++){
sum += j;
}
}
Thank you for Answer 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
you really should be able to figure it out yourself.
Just imagine you were to execute the code for some value of n and estimate the
number of important operations; and then for a value twice as large.
The ratio between those two "measures of complexity" should be visible in the big O.
|
|
|
|
|
bosszy wrote: What is there bigO
You should really do your own homework. What do you think it is? You should really try it rather than waiting for an answer. The answer is really easy, and if you can't figure it out, then, well, don't know what to tell you.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Conrad wrote: don't know what to tell you
you don't know either? 
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: you don't know either?
Heck yeah, I know the answer to it (it is a polynomial), but not going to announce it for him to cheat on his assignment.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming n>0, if you want to know how often "sum += j;" is executed, it's n cubed exactly -- never mind the big O.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to implement Choleski's algorithm for a 5 by 5 matrix. When I run compare the results to Sci Lab, I find that my answer is different. Therefore, I am assuming that I am wrong. The code below is based on an algorithm given in the book "Numerical Analysis" by Burden, Faires
and Reynolds. Here is code:
void
Cholesky(double a[5][5], double l[5][5] )
{
const int n = 5;
l[0][0] = sqrt(a[0][0]);
for( int j=2; j<=n; j++ )
l[j-1][0] = a[j-1][0]/l[0][0];
for( int i = 2 ; i<=(n-1); i++ ) {
double sum = a[i-1][i-1];
for( int k=1; k<=i-1; k++ )
sum -= (l[i-1][k-1])*(l[i-1][k-1]);
l[i-1][i-1] = sqrt(sum);
for( int j = i+1; j<=n; j++ ) {
double sum = a[j-1][i-1];
for( int k = 1; k <= (i-1); k ++ )
sum -= l[j-1][k-1] * l[i-1][k-1];
l[j][i] = sum/l[i-1][i-1];
}
}
double sum = a[n-1][n-1];
for( int k = 1; k<=(n-1); k++ )
sum -= l[n-1][k-1] * l[n-1][k-1];
l[n-1][n-1] = sqrt(sum);
}
I am hoping that somebody can tell me where my problem is. Thanks.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bob,
I think you should check your indices. I prefer the Numerical Recipes in C[^] version. See Chapter 2 Solution of Linear Algebraic Equations for other code. The Cholesky code for the Numerical Recipes routine is:
#include <math.h>
void choldc(float **a, int n, float p[])
{
void nrerror(char error_text[]);
int i,j,k;
float sum;
for (i=1;i<=n;i++) {
for (j=i;j<=n;j++) {
for (sum=a[i][j],k=i-1;k>=1;k--) sum -= a[i][k]*a[j][k];
if (i == j) {
if (sum <= 0.0)
nrerror("choldc failed");
p[i]=sqrt(sum);
} else a[j][i]=sum/p[i];
}
}
}
</math.h>
Try the NR code and see how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, it was very helpful.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
BobInNJ wrote: Thanks for the response, it was very helpful.
No problem!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
BobInNJ wrote: l[j][i] = sum/l[i-1][i-1];
IMO this is where the problem is.
Some more comments:
1.
the first few lines are not really useful
l[0][0] = sqrt(a[0][0]);
for( int j=2; j<=n; j++ )l[j-1][0] = a[j-1][0]/l[0][0];
you could get them for free by starting the next for loop with i=1 instead of i=2
2.
you are aware you could do the same thing in place? i.e. you can store l in a, you don't really need a separate array for input and output.
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone implemented clarke and wright algorithm with multiple truck capacities.If yes please help me with implementing the same. Thanks
Hemanth
|
|
|
|
|
Try this: Single-Depot VRP[^].
They don't give you the code but there's more than enough information to show you how to implement it.
|
|
|
|
|
plz help me in writing an algorithm of the following problem
Problem:
"Let S be a set of n disjoint line segments in the plane, and let p be a point not on any of the line segments of S. We wish to determine all line segments of S that p can see, that is, all line segments of S that contains some points q so that the open segment pq does not intersect any line segment of S. Give an O(nlogn) time algorithm for this problem that uses a rotating half line with its endpoint at p."
regards,
Irfan
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
