Adding or removing elements from a min heap

Adding or removing elements from a min heap - java

I am trying to create a min heap but I am running into the issue where the numbers that are being displayed in my min heap are all in random order and there are extra 0's where there should be different values. This is the code for my class that does most of the work:
public class Heap211 {
static Random rand = new Random();
static public int[] Heap;
static public int size;
Heap211(){
Heap = new int[30];
size = 0;
}
static public int parent(int index){//location of parent
return index / 2;//array[k / 2]
}
static public int leftChild(int index){//location of left child
return index * 2;//array[k * 2]
}
static public int rightChild(int index){//location of right child
return index * 2 + 1;//array[k * 2 + 1]
}
static public boolean hasParent(int index){
return index > 1;
}
static public boolean hasLeftChild(int index){
return leftChild(index) * 2 <= size;
}
static public boolean hasRightChild(int index){
return rightChild(index * 2) + 1 <= size;
}
static public void swap(int[] a, int index1, int index2){//swaps nodes
int temp = a[index1];
a[index1] = a[index2];
a[index2] = temp;
}
static public int peek(){//peeks at the top of the stack (min value)
return Heap[1];
}
public static boolean isEmpty(){
return size == 0;
}
static int randInt(int min, int max){//generates random int between two numbers
return ((int) (Math.random()*(max - min))) + min;
}
public String toString(){
String result = "[";
if(!isEmpty()){
result += Heap[1];
for(int i = 2; i <= size; i++){
result += ", " + Heap[i];
}
}
return result + "]";
}
public void add(int value){//adds the give value to this priority queue in order
if(size + 1 >= Heap.length){
Heap = Arrays.copyOf(Heap, Heap.length * 2);
}
size++;
Heap[size + 1] = value;//add as rightmost leaf
//"bubble up" as necessary to fix ordering
int index = size + 1;
boolean found = false;
while(!found && hasParent(index) && hasLeftChild(index)){
int parent = parent(index);
if(Heap[index] < Heap[parent]){
swap(Heap, index, parent(index));
index = parent(index);
}else{//after done bubbling up
found = true;
}
}
}
public int remove(){
//move rightmost leaf to become new root
int result = peek();//last leaf -> root
Heap[1] = Heap[size];
size--;
//"bubble down" as necessary to fix ordering
int index = 1;
boolean found = false;
while(!found && hasLeftChild(index)){
int left = leftChild(index);
int right = rightChild(index);
int child = left;
if(hasRightChild(index) && Heap[right] < Heap[left]){
child = right;
}
if(Heap[index] > Heap[child]){
swap(Heap, index, child);
index = child;
}else{
found = true;//found proper location, stop the loop
}
}
return result;
}
This is the code for my main class:
public static void main(String[] args){
Heap211 pq = new Heap211();
for(int node = 1;node <= 30; node++){//loop runs 30 times for 30 nodes
int smValue = randInt(0,2);//generates random number between 1 and 0
if(smValue == 0){//if random number is 0 then it will add random number to heap
int value = randInt(0,100);//generates random number between 0 and 100
System.out.println(node + " Add " + value + ": ");
pq.add(value);//adds random number
System.out.println(pq);//print heap
}else if(smValue == 1 && pq.isEmpty()){
int value = pq.remove();
System.out.println(node + " Remove " + value + ": ");
System.out.println(pq);
}
}
I have a GUI that displays all the numbers but I am getting the wrong output. Any helpful pointers would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

I found a few problems in your code.
Your hasLeftChild function is wrong. You have return leftChild(index*2) <= size;. But you really should be checking for leftChild(index) <= size. You have a similar error in your hasRightChild function.
Not sure why you pass an array parameter to swap. The only array in which you swap stuff is the Heap array, which is a member of the class.
You have an error in your add method. You increment the size, and then add an item. That is:
size++;
Heap[size + 1] = value;
So imagine what happens when you add the first item. size is equal to 0, and you increment it to 1. Then you add the value at index size+1. So your array contains [0, 0, value]. That's probably the source of your extra 0's. I think what you want is:
Heap[size] = value;
size++;
You'll have to modify the rest of your code to take that into account.
Your "bubble up" loop is kind of wonky. You have:
while (!found && hasParent(index) && hasLeftChild(index))
That's never going to bubble anything up, because when you add something to the last element of the heap, that node doesn't have a left child. You also don't need the found flag. You can write:
while (hasParent(index) && Heap[index] < Heap[parent]]) {
swap(Heap, index, parent(index));
index = parent(index);
}
I can't guarantee that those are the only errors in your code, but they're the ones I found in a quick review of your code.
On a general note, why in the world are you creating a 1-based binary heap in a language that has 0-based arrays? There's no need to do that, and it's confusing as heck. For why I think it's a bad idea, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/49806133/56778 and http://blog.mischel.com/2016/09/19/but-thats-the-way-weve-always-done-it/.
Finally, you should learn to use your debugger, as suggested in comments. Take the time to do it now. It will save you hours of frustration.

Related

binary search to return more than one index JAVA

I have the array {1,2,3,4,4,4,5}
I want my function return index of 4.
for example : 4 found at location 4,5,6
public void binarySearch(int value){
sort(); // sorting the array
int index=-1;
int lower=0;
int upper=count-1;
while(lower<=upper){
int middle=(lower+upper)/2;
if(value==array[middle]){
index=middle;
System.out.println(value+ " found at location "+(index+1));
break;
}
else if(value<array[middle]){
upper=middle-1;
}
else lower=middle+1;
}
}

It's not too hard. We know that because the list is sorted, all of our indexes are going to be contiguous (next to one another). So once we've found one, we just have to traverse the list in both directions to find out what other indexes also match.
public static void binarySearch(int value){
sort();
int index = -1;
int lower = 0;
int upper = array.length - 1;
while(lower <= upper){
// The same as your code
}
// Create a list of indexes
final List<Integer> indexes = new LinkedList<>();
// Add the one we already found
indexes.add(index);
// Iterate upwards until we hit the end or a different value
int current = index + 1;
while (current < array.length && array[current] == value)
{
indexes.add(current);
current++;
}
// Iterate downwards until we hit the start or a different value
current = index - 1;
while (current >= 0 && array[current] == value)
{
indexes.add(current);
current--;
}
// Sort the indexes (do we care?)
Collections.sort(indexes);
for (int idx : indexes)
{
System.out.println(value + " found at " + (idx + 1));
}
}
Bear in mind that what you have implemented is already a binary search. The extra code to find additional matching indexes would not fall under the usual definition of a binary search.

Reduced time complexity of inner loop: Find count of elements greater than current element in the first loop and store that in solved array

I want to reduce the complexity of this program and find count of elements greater than current/picked element in first loop (array[])and store the count in solved array(solved[]) and loop through the end of the array[]. I have approached the problem using a general array based approach which turned out to have greater time complexity when 2nd loop is huge.
But If someone can suggest a better collection here in java that can reduce the complexity of this code that would also be highly appreciated.
for (int i = 0; i < input; i++) {
if (i < input - 1) {
count=0;
for (int j = i+1; j < input; j++) {
System.out.print((array[i])+" ");
System.out.print("> ");
System.out.print((array[j]) +""+(array[i] > array[j])+" ");
if (array[i] > array[j]) {
count++;
}
}
solved[i] = count;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < input; i++) {
System.out.print(solved[i] + " ");
}
What I want to achieve in simpler terms
Input
Say I have 4 elements in my
array[] -->86,77,15,93
output
solved[]-->2 1 0 0
2 because after 86 there are only two elements 77,15 lesser than 86
1 because after 77 there is only 15 lesser than 77
rest 15 <93 hence 0,0

So making the code simpler and making the code faster aren't necessarily the same thing. If you want the code to be simple and readable, you could try a sort. That is, you could try something like
int[] solved = new int[array.length];
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++){
int[] afterward = Arrays.copyOfRange(array, i, array.length);
Arrays.sort(afterward);
solved[i] = Arrays.binarySearch(afterward, array[i]);
}
What this does it it takes a copy of the all the elements after the current index (and also including it), and then sorts that copy. Any element less than the desired element will be beforehand, and any element greater will be afterward. By finding the index of the element, you're finding the number of indices before it.
A disclaimer: There's no guarantee that this will work if duplicates are present. You have to manually check to see if there are any duplicate values, or otherwise somehow be sure you won't have any.
Edit: This algorithm runs in O(n2 log n) time, where n is the size of the original list. The sort takes O(n log n), and you do it n times. The binary search is much faster than the sort (O(log n)) so it gets absorbed into the O(n log n) from the sort. It's not perfectly optimized, but the code itself is very simple, which was the goal here.

With Java 8 streams you could reimplement it like this:
int[] array = new int[] { 86,77,15,93 };
int[] solved =
IntStream.range(0, array.length)
.mapToLong((i) -> Arrays.stream(array, i + 1, array.length)
.filter((x) -> x < array[i])
.count())
.mapToInt((l) -> (int) l)
.toArray();

There is actually a O(n*logn) solution, but you should use a self balancing binary search tree such as red-black tree.
Main idea of the algorithm:
You will iterate through your array from right to left and insert in the tree triples (value, sizeOfSubtree, countOfSmaller). Variable sizeOfSubtree will indicate the size of the subtree rooted at that element, while countOfSmaller counts the number of elements that are smaller than this element and appear at the right side of it in the original array.
Why binary search tree? An important property of BST is that all nodes in the left subtree are smaller than the current node, and all in the right subtree are greater.
Why self-balancing tree? Because this will guarantee you O(logn) time complexity while inserting a new element, so for n elements in array that will give O(n*logn) in total.
When you insert a new element you will also calculate the value of countOfSmaller by counting elements that are currently in the tree and are smaller than this element - exactly what are we looking for. Upon inserting in the tree compare the new element with the existing nodes, starting with the root. Important: if the value of the new element is greater than the value of the root, it means that is also greater than all the nodes in the left subtree of root. Therefore, set countOfSmaller to the sizeOfSubtree of root's left child + 1 (because the new element is also greater than root) and proceed recursively in the right subtree. If it is smaller than root, it goes to the left subtree of root. In both cases increment sizeOfSubtree of root and proceed recursively. While rebalancing the tree, just update the sizeOfSubtree for nodes that are included in left/right rotation and that's it.
Sample code:
public class Test
{
static class Node {
public int value, countOfSmaller, sizeOfSubtree;
public Node left, right;
public Node(int val, int count) {
value = val;
countOfSmaller = count;
sizeOfSubtree = 1; /** You always add a new node as a leaf */
System.out.println("For element " + val + " the number of smaller elements to the right is " + count);
}
}
static Node insert(Node node, int value, int countOfSmaller)
{
if (node == null)
return new Node(value, countOfSmaller);
if (value > node.value)
node.right = insert(node.right, value, countOfSmaller + size(node.left) + 1);
else
node.left = insert(node.left, value, countOfSmaller);
node.sizeOfSubtree = size(node.left) + size(node.right) + 1;
/** Here goes the rebalancing part. In case that you plan to use AVL, you will need an additional variable that will keep the height of the subtree.
In case of red-black tree, you will need an additional variable that will indicate whether the node is red or black */
return node;
}
static int size(Node n)
{
return n == null ? 0 : n.sizeOfSubtree;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] array = {13, 8, 4, 7, 1, 11};
Node root = insert(null, array[array.length - 1], 0);
for(int i = array.length - 2; i >= 0; i--)
insert(root, array[i], 0); /** When you introduce rebalancing, this should be root = insert(root, array[i], 0); */
}
}

As Miljen Mikic pointed out, the correct approach is using RB/AVL tree. Here is the code that can read and N testcase do the job as quickly as possible. Accepting Miljen code as the best approach to the given problem statement.
class QuickReader {
static BufferedReader quickreader;
static StringTokenizer quicktoken;
/** call this method to initialize reader for InputStream */
static void init(InputStream input) {
quickreader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(input));
quicktoken = new StringTokenizer("");
}
static String next() throws IOException {
while (!quicktoken.hasMoreTokens()) {
quicktoken = new StringTokenizer(quickreader.readLine());
}
return quicktoken.nextToken();
}
static int nextInt() throws IOException {
return Integer.parseInt(next());
}
static long nextLong() throws IOException {
return Long.parseLong(next());
}
static double nextDouble() throws IOException {
return Double.parseDouble(next());
}
}
public class ExecuteClass{
static int countInstance = 0;
static int solved[];
static int size;
static class Node {
public int value, countOfSmaller, sizeOfSubtree;
public Node left, right;
public Node(int val, int count, int len, int... arraytoBeused) {
countInstance++;
value = val;
size = len;
countOfSmaller = count;
sizeOfSubtree = 1; /** You always add a new node as a leaf */
solved = arraytoBeused;
solved[size - countInstance] = count;
}
}
static Node insert(Node node, int value, int countOfSmaller, int len, int solved[]) {
if (node == null)
return new Node(value, countOfSmaller, len, solved);
if (value > node.value)
node.right = insert(node.right, value, countOfSmaller + size(node.left) + 1, len, solved);
else
node.left = insert(node.left, value, countOfSmaller, len, solved);
node.sizeOfSubtree = size(node.left) + size(node.right) + 1;
return node;
}
static int size(Node n) {
return n == null ? 0 : n.sizeOfSubtree;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
QuickReader.init(System.in);
int testCase = QuickReader.nextInt();
for (int i = 1; i <= testCase; i++) {
int input = QuickReader.nextInt();
int array[] = new int[input];
int solved[] = new int[input];
for (int j = 0; j < input; j++) {
array[j] = QuickReader.nextInt();
}
Node root = insert(null, array[array.length - 1], 0, array.length, solved);
for (int ii = array.length - 2; ii >= 0; ii--)
insert(root, array[ii], 0, array.length, solved);
for (int jj = 0; jj < solved.length; jj++) {
System.out.print(solved[jj] + " ");
}
System.out.println();
countInstance = 0;
solved = null;
size = 0;
root = null;
}
}
}

Updating Heap in both direction (Prim's Algorithm)

In Prim's algorithm, it is recommended to maintain the invariant in the following way :
When a vertice v is added to the MST:
For each edge (v,w) in the unexplored tree:
1. Delete w from the min heap.
2. Recompute the key[w] (i.e. it's value from the unexplored tree
to the explored one).
3. Add the value back to the heap.
So, basically this involves deletion from the heap (and heapify which takes O(logn)) and then reinserting (again O(logn))
Instead, if I use the following approach:
For each edge (v,w) in the unexplored tree:
1. Get the position of the node in the heap(array) using HashMap -> O(1)
2. Update the value in place.
3. Bubble up or bubble down accordingly. -> O(logn)
Which gives better constants than the previous one.
The controversial part is the 3rd part where Im supposed to bubble up or down.
My implementation is as follows :
public int heapifyAt(int index){
// Bubble up
if(heap[index].edgeCost < heap[(int)Math.floor(index/2)].edgeCost){
while(heap[index].edgeCost < heap[(int)Math.floor(index/2)].edgeCost){
swap(index, (int)Math.floor(index/2));
index = (int)Math.floor(index/2);
}
}else{
// Bubble down
while(index*2 + 2 < size && (heap[index].edgeCost > heap[index*2 + 1].edgeCost|| heap[index].edgeCost > heap[index*2 + 2].edgeCost)){
if(heap[index*2 + 1].edgeCost < heap[index*2 + 2].edgeCost){
//swap with left child
swap(index, index*2 + 1);
index = index*2 + 1;
}else{
//swap with right child
swap(index, index*2 + 2);
index = index*2 + 2;
}
}
}
return index;
}
And I'am plucking from the heap this way :
public AdjNode pluck(){
AdjNode min = heap[0];
int minNodeNumber = heap[0].nodeNumber;
AdjNode toRet = new AdjNode(min.nodeNumber, min.edgeCost);
heap[0].edgeCost = INF; // set this to infinity, so it'll be at the bottom
// of the heap.
heapifyat(0);
visited.add(minNodeNumber);
updatevertices(minNodeNumber); // Update the adjacent vertices
return toRet;
}
And updating the plucked vertices this way :
public void updatevertices(int pluckedNode){
for(AdjNode adjacentNode : g.list[pluckedNode]){
if(!visited.contains(adjacentNode.nodeNumber)){ // Skip the nodes that are already visited
int positionInHeap = map.get(adjacentNode.nodeNumber); // Retrive the position from HashMap
if(adjacentNode.edgeCost < heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost){
heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost = adjacentNode.edgeCost; // Update if the cost is better
heapifyAt(positionInHeap); // Now this will go bottom or up, depending on the value
}
}
}
}
But when I execute it on large graph, the code fails, There are small values in the bottom of heap and large values at the top. But the heapifyAt() API seems to work fine. So I am unable to figure out is my approach wrong or my code?
Moreover, if I replace the heapifyAt() API by siftDown(), i.e. construct the heap, it works fine, but it doesnt make sense calling siftDown() that takes O(n) time for every updates which can be processed in logarithmic time.
In short : Is it possible to update the values in Heap both way, or the algorithm is wrong, since that's why it is recommended to first remove the element from Heap and reinsert it.
EDIT : Complete code:
public class Graph1{
public static final int INF = 9999999;
public static final int NEGINF = -9999999;
static class AdjNode{
int nodeNumber;
int edgeCost;
AdjNode next;
AdjNode(int nodeNumber, int edgeCost){
this.nodeNumber = nodeNumber;
this.edgeCost = edgeCost;
}
}
static class AdjList implements Iterable<AdjNode>{
AdjNode head;
AdjList(){
}
public void add(int to, int cost){
if(head==null){
head = new AdjNode(to, cost);
}else{
AdjNode temp = head;
while(temp.next!=null){
temp = temp.next;
}
temp.next = new AdjNode(to, cost);
}
}
public Iterator<AdjNode> iterator(){
return new Iterator<AdjNode>(){
AdjNode temp = head;
public boolean hasNext(){
if(head==null){
return false;
}
return temp != null;
}
public AdjNode next(){
AdjNode ttemp = temp;
temp = temp.next;
return ttemp;
}
public void remove(){
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
};
}
public void printList(){
AdjNode temp = head;
if(head==null){
System.out.println("List Empty");
return;
}
while(temp.next!=null){
System.out.print(temp.nodeNumber + "|" + temp.edgeCost + "-> ");
temp = temp.next;
}
System.out.println(temp.nodeNumber + "|" + temp.edgeCost);
}
}
static class Heap{
int size;
AdjNode[] heap;
Graph g;
int pluckSize;
Set<Integer> visited = new HashSet<Integer>();
HashMap<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
Heap(){
}
Heap(Graph g){
this.g = g;
this.size = g.numberOfVertices;
this.pluckSize = size - 1;
heap = new AdjNode[size];
copyElements();
constructHeap();
}
public void copyElements(){
AdjList first = g.list[0];
int k = 0;
heap[k++] = new AdjNode(0, NEGINF); //First entry
for(AdjNode nodes : first){
heap[nodes.nodeNumber] = nodes;
}
for(int i=0; i<size; i++){
if(heap[i]==null){
heap[i] = new AdjNode(i, INF);
}
}
}
public void printHashMap(){
System.out.println("Priniting HashMap");
for(int i=0; i<size; i++){
System.out.println(i + " Pos in heap :" + map.get(i));
}
line();
}
public void line(){
System.out.println("*******************************************");
}
public void printHeap(){
System.out.println("Printing Heap");
for(int i=0; i<size; i++){
System.out.println(heap[i].nodeNumber + " | " + heap[i].edgeCost);
}
line();
}
public void initializeMap(){
for(int i=0; i<size; i++){
map.put(heap[i].nodeNumber, i);
}
}
public void swap(int one, int two){
AdjNode first = heap[one];
AdjNode second = heap[two];
map.put(first.nodeNumber, two);
map.put(second.nodeNumber, one);
AdjNode temp = heap[one];
heap[one] = heap[two];
heap[two] = temp;
}
public void constructHeap(){
for(int i=size-1; i>=0; i--){
int temp = i;
while(heap[temp].edgeCost < heap[(int)Math.floor(temp/2)].edgeCost){
swap(temp, (int)Math.floor(temp/2));
temp = (int)Math.floor(temp/2);
}
}
initializeMap();
}
public void updatevertices(int pluckedNode){
for(AdjNode adjacentNode : g.list[pluckedNode]){
if(!visited.contains(adjacentNode.nodeNumber)){
int positionInHeap = map.get(adjacentNode.nodeNumber);
if(adjacentNode.edgeCost < heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost){
// //System.out.println(adjacentNode.nodeNumber + " not visited, Updating vertice " + heap[positionInHeap].nodeNumber + " from " + heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost + " to " + adjacentNode.edgeCost);
// heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost = INF;
// //heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost = adjacentNode.edgeCost;
// int heapifiedIndex = heapifyAt(positionInHeap); // This code follows my logic
// heap[heapifiedIndex].edgeCost = adjacentNode.edgeCost; // (which doesnt work)
// //heapifyAt(size - 1);
heap[positionInHeap].edgeCost = adjacentNode.edgeCost;
//heapifyAt(positionInHeap);
constructHeap(); // When replaced by SiftDown,
} // works as charm
}
}
}
public void printSet(){
Iterator<Integer> it = visited.iterator();
System.out.print("Printing set : [");
while(it.hasNext()){
System.out.print((int)it.next() + ", ");
}
System.out.println("]");
}
public AdjNode pluck(){
AdjNode min = heap[0];
int minNodeNumber = heap[0].nodeNumber;
AdjNode toRet = new AdjNode(min.nodeNumber, min.edgeCost);
heap[0].edgeCost = INF;
constructHeap();
visited.add(minNodeNumber);
updatevertices(minNodeNumber);
return toRet;
}
public int heapifyAt(int index){
if(heap[index].edgeCost < heap[(int)Math.floor(index/2)].edgeCost){
while(heap[index].edgeCost < heap[(int)Math.floor(index/2)].edgeCost){
swap(index, (int)Math.floor(index/2));
index = (int)Math.floor(index/2);
}
}else{
if(index*2 + 2 < size){
while(index*2 + 2 < size && (heap[index].edgeCost > heap[index*2 + 1].edgeCost|| heap[index].edgeCost > heap[index*2 + 2].edgeCost)){
if(heap[index*2 + 1].edgeCost < heap[index*2 + 2].edgeCost){
//swap with left child
swap(index, index*2 + 1);
index = index*2 + 1;
}else{
//swap with right child
swap(index, index*2 + 2);
index = index*2 + 2;
}
}
}
}
return index;
}
}
static class Graph{
int numberOfVertices;
AdjList[] list;
Graph(int numberOfVertices){
list = new AdjList[numberOfVertices];
for(int i=0; i<numberOfVertices; i++){
list[i] = new AdjList();
}
this.numberOfVertices = numberOfVertices;
}
public void addEdge(int from, int to, int cost){
this.list[from].add(to, cost);
this.list[to].add(from, cost);
}
public void printGraph(){
System.out.println("Printing Graph");
for(int i=0; i<numberOfVertices; i++){
System.out.print(i + " = ");
list[i].printList();
}
}
}
public static void prims(Graph graph, Heap heap){
int totalMin = INF;
int tempSize = graph.numberOfVertices;
while(tempSize>0){
AdjNode min = heap.pluck();
totalMin += min.edgeCost;
System.out.println("Added cost : " + min.edgeCost);
tempSize--;
}
System.out.println("Total min : " + totalMin);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Throwable {
Scanner in = new Scanner(new File("/home/mayur/Downloads/PrimsInput.txt"));
Graph graph = new Graph(in.nextInt());
in.nextInt();
while(in.hasNext()){
graph.addEdge(in.nextInt() - 1, in.nextInt() - 1, in.nextInt());
}
Heap heap = new Heap(graph);
prims(graph, heap);
}
}

With a proper implementation of heap, you should be able to bubble up and down. Heap preserves a group of elements using an order that applies to both directions and bubbling up and down are essentially the same, apart from the direction in which you move.
As to your implementation, I believe you are correct but one, seemingly minor issue: indexing.
If you look around for array implementations of heap, you will notice that in most cases the root is located at index 1, instead of 0. The reason for that being, in a 1-indexed array you preserve the following relation between parent p and children c1 and c2.
heap[i] = p
heap[2 * i] = c1
heap[2 * i + 1] = c2
It is trivial to draw an array on a piece of paper and see that this relation holds, if you have the root at heap[1]. The children of root, at index 1, are located at indices 2 and 3. Children of the node at index 2 are at indices 4 & 5, while children of the node at index 3 are at indices 6 & 7, and so on.
This relation helps you get to the children or the parent of any node at i, without having to keep track of where they are. (i.e. parent is at floor(i/2) and children are at 2i and 2i+1)
What you seem to have tried is a 0-indexed implementation of heap. Consequently you had to use a slightly different relation given below for parent p and children c1 and c2.
heap[i] = p
heap[2 * i + 1] = c1
heap[2 * i + 2] = c2
This seems to be ok when accessing the children. For example, the children of root, at index 0, are located at indices 1 and 2. Children of the node at index 1 are at indices 3 & 4, while children of the node at index 2 are at indices 5 & 6, and so on. However there is a pickle when accessing the parent of a node. If you consider node 3 and take floor(3/2), you do get index 1, which is the parent of 1. However, if you take the node at index 4, floor(4/2) gives you index 2, which is not the parent of the node at index 4.
Obviously, this adaptation of the index relationship between a parent and its children does not work for both children. Unlike the 1-indexed heap implementation, you can not treat both children the same while accessing their parents. Therefore, the problem lies specifically in your bubbling up part, without necessarily being related to bubbling up operation. As a matter of fact, though I haven't tested your code, the bubbling up portion of heapifyAt function seems to be correct.(i.e. except the indexing, of course)
Now, you may keep using a 0-indexed heap and adapt your code so that whenever you are looking for a node's parent, you implicitly check whether it is the right (i.e. not as in correct but as in the opposite of left) child of that parent and use floor((i-1)/2) if it is. Checking whether a node is the right child is trivial: just look if it is even or not. (i.e. as you index right children with 2i + 2, they will always be even)
However I recommend you take a different approach and instead use a 1-indexed array implementation of heap. The elegance of the array implementation of heap is that you can treat each node the same and you don't have to do anything different based on its index or location, with the root of the heap perhaps being the only possible exception to this.

Finding max and min using divide and conquer approach

I know this is a silly question,but I'm not getting this at all.
In this code taken from http://somnathkayal.blogspot.in/2012/08/finding-maximum-and-minimum-using.html
public int[] maxMin(int[] a,int i,int j,int max,int min) {
int mid,max1,min1;
int result[] = new int[2];
//Small(P)
if (i==j) max = min = a[i];
else if (i==j-1) { // Another case of Small(P)
if (a[i] < a[j]) {
this.max = getMax(this.max,a[j]);
this.min = getMin(this.min,a[i]);
}
else {
this.max = getMax(this.max,a[i]);
this.min = getMin(this.min,a[j]); }
} else {
// if P is not small, divide P into sub-problems.
// Find where to split the set.
mid = (i + j) / 2;
// Solve the sub-problems.
max1 = min1 = a[mid+1];
maxMin( a, i, mid, max, min );
maxMin( a, mid+1, j, max1, min1 );
// Combine the solutions.
if (this.max < max1) this.max = max1;
if (this.min > min1) this.min = min1;
}
result[0] = this.max;
result[1] = this.min;
return result;
}
}
Let's say the array is 8,5,3,7 and we have to find max and min,
Initial values of max and min=arr[0]=8;
First time list will be divided into 8,5
We call MaxMin with max=8 and min=8,since i==j-1,we will get max=8,min=5,
Next time list will be divided into [3,7],
min1=max1=arr[mid+1]=3,
We call MaxMin with max=3 and min=3.Since i is equal to j-1,we will get max=7,min=3,
Next the comparison is performed between max1,max and min1,min ,
Here is my confusion,
The values of max and max1 here is 8 and 7 respectively,but how???
We have not modified max1 anywhere,then how it will have a value 7,
As per my understanding,we had called MaxMin with max=3 and min=3 and then updated max=7 and min=3,but we had not returned these updated values,then how the values of max1 and min1 got updated,
I'm stuck at this,please explain.
Thanks.

It looks like you are updating 2 external values (not in this function) which are this.min and this.max
All you do is splitting in pieces of 1 or 2 elements and then update this.min and this.max, so you could also directly scan the array and check all int value for min/max. This is not really doing divide and conquer.
Here is a solution that really use divide and conquer :
public int[] maxMin(int[] a,int i,int j) {
int localmin,localmax;
int mid,max1,min1,max2,min2;
int[] result = new int[2];
//Small(P) when P is one element
if (i==j) {
localmin = a[i]
localmax = a[i];
}
else {
// if P is not small, divide P into sub-problems.
// where to split the set
mid = (i + j) / 2;
// Solve the sub-problems.
int[] result1 = maxMin( a, i, mid);
int[] result2 = maxMin( a, mid+1, j);
max1 = result1[0];
min1 = result1[1];
max2=result2[0];
min2=result2[1];
// Combine the solutions.
if (max1 < max2) localmax = max2;
else localmax=max1;
if (min1 < min2) localmin = min1;
else localmin=min2;
}
result[0] = localmax;
result[1] = localmin;
return result;
}

Frankly that blogger's code looks like a mess. You should have no confidence in it.
Take is this line early on:
if (i==j) max = min = a[i];
The values passed INTO the function, max and min, aren't ever used in this case, they are just set, and then lost forever. Note also if this line runs, the array result is neither set nor returned. (I would have thought that the compiler would warn that there are code paths that don't return a value.) So that's a bug, but since he never uses the return value anywhere it might be harmless.
The code sometimes acts like it is returning values through max and min (can't be done), while other parts of the code pass back the array result, or set this.max and this.min.
I can't quite decide without running it if the algorithm will ever return the wrong result. It may just happen to work. But its a mess, and if it were written better you could see how it worked with some confidence. I think the author should have written it in a more purely functional style, with no reliance on external variables like this.min and this.max.
Parenthetically, I note that when someone asked a question in the comments he replied to the effect that understanding the algorithm was the main goal. "Implementation [of] this algorithm is very much complex. For you I am updating a program with this." Gee, thanks.
In short, find a different example to study. Lord of dark posted a response as I originally wrote this, and it looks much improved.

Code
import java.util.Random;
public class MinMaxArray {
private static Random R = new Random();
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.print("\nPress any key to continue.. ");
try{
System.in.read();
}
catch(Exception e){
;
}
int N = R.nextInt(10)+5;
int[] A = new int[N];
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
int VAL = R.nextInt(200)-100;
A[i] = VAL;
}
Print(A);
Pair P = new Pair(Integer.MIN_VALUE, Integer.MAX_VALUE);
P = MinMax(A, 0, A.length-1);
System.out.println("\nMin: " + P.MIN);
System.out.println("\nMax: " + P.MAX);
}
private static Pair MinMax(int[] A, int start, int end) {
Pair P = new Pair(Integer.MIN_VALUE, Integer.MAX_VALUE);
Pair P_ = new Pair(Integer.MIN_VALUE, Integer.MAX_VALUE);
Pair F = new Pair(Integer.MIN_VALUE, Integer.MAX_VALUE);
if(start == end){
P.MIN = A[start];
P.MAX = A[start];
return P;
}
else if(start + 1 == end){
if(A[start] > A[end]){
P.MAX = A[start];
P.MIN = A[end];
}
else{
P.MAX = A[end];
P.MIN = A[start];
}
return P;
}
else{
int mid = (start + (end - start)/2);
P = MinMax(A, start, mid);
P_ = MinMax(A, (mid + 1), end);
if(P.MAX > P_.MAX){
F.MAX = P.MAX;
}
else{
F.MAX = P_.MAX;
}
if(P.MIN < P_.MIN){
F.MIN = P.MIN;
}
else{
F.MIN = P_.MIN;
}
return F;
}
}
private static void Print(int[] A) {
System.out.println();
for(int x: A){
System.out.print(x + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
class Pair{
public int MIN, MAX;
public Pair(int MIN, int MAX){
this.MIN = MIN;
this.MAX = MAX;
}
}
Explanation
This is the JAVA code for finding out the MIN and MAX value in an Array using the Divide & Conquer approach, with the help of a Pair class.
The Random class of JAVA initializes the Array with a Random size N ε(5, 15) and with Random values ranging between (-100, 100).
An Object P of the Pair class is created which takes back the return value from MinMax() method. The MinMax() method takes an Array (A[]), a Starting Index (start) and a Final Index (end) as the Parameters.
Working Logic
Three different objects P, P_, F are created, of the Pair class.
Cases :-
Array Size -> 1 (start == end) : In this case, both the MIN and the MAX value are A[0], which is then assigned to the object P of the Pair class as P.MIN and P.MAX, which is then returned.
Array Size -> 2 (start + 1 == end) : In this case, the code block compares both the values of the Array and then assign it to the object P of the Pair class as P.MIN and P.MAX, which is then returned.
Array Size > 2 : In this case, the Mid is calculated and the MinMax method is called from start -> mid and (mid + 1) -> end. which again will call recursively until the first two cases hit and returns the value. The values are stored in object P and P_, which are then compared and then finally returned by object F as F.MAX and F.MIN.
The Pair Class has one method by the same name Pair(), which takes 2 Int parameters, as MIN and MAX, assigned to then as Pair.MIN and Pair.MAX
Further Links for Code
https://www.techiedelight.com/find-minimum-maximum-element-array-minimum-comparisons/
https://www.enjoyalgorithms.com/blog/find-the-minimum-and-maximum-value-in-an-array

Using Binary Search with sorted Array with duplicates [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Finding multiple entries with binary search
(15 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I've been tasked with creating a method that will print all the indices where value x is found in a sorted array.
I understand that if we just scanned through the array from 0 to N (length of array) it would have a running time of O(n) worst case. Since the array that will be passed into the method will be sorted, I'm assuming that I can take advantage of using a Binary Search since this will be O(log n). However, this only works if the array has unique values. Since the Binary Search will finish after the first "find" of a particular value. I was thinking of doing a Binary Search for finding x in the sorted array, and then checking all values before and after this index, but then if the array contained all x values, it doesn't seem like it would be that much better.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there a better way to find all the indices for a particular value in a sorted array that is better than O(n)?
public void PrintIndicesForValue42(int[] sortedArrayOfInts)
{
// search through the sortedArrayOfInts
// print all indices where we find the number 42.
}
Ex: sortedArray = { 1, 13, 42, 42, 42, 77, 78 } would print: "42 was found at Indices: 2, 3, 4"

You will get the result in O(lg n)
public static void PrintIndicesForValue(int[] numbers, int target) {
if (numbers == null)
return;
int low = 0, high = numbers.length - 1;
// get the start index of target number
int startIndex = -1;
while (low <= high) {
int mid = (high - low) / 2 + low;
if (numbers[mid] > target) {
high = mid - 1;
} else if (numbers[mid] == target) {
startIndex = mid;
high = mid - 1;
} else
low = mid + 1;
}
// get the end index of target number
int endIndex = -1;
low = 0;
high = numbers.length - 1;
while (low <= high) {
int mid = (high - low) / 2 + low;
if (numbers[mid] > target) {
high = mid - 1;
} else if (numbers[mid] == target) {
endIndex = mid;
low = mid + 1;
} else
low = mid + 1;
}
if (startIndex != -1 && endIndex != -1){
for(int i=0; i+startIndex<=endIndex;i++){
if(i>0)
System.out.print(',');
System.out.print(i+startIndex);
}
}
}

Well, if you actually do have a sorted array, you can do a binary search until you find one of the indexes you're looking for, and from there, the rest should be easy to find since they're all next to each-other.
once you've found your first one, than you go find all the instances before it, and then all the instances after it.
Using that method you should get roughly O(lg(n)+k) where k is the number of occurrences of the value that you're searching for.
EDIT:
And, No, you will never be able to access all k values in anything less than O(k) time.
Second edit: so that I can feel as though I'm actually contributing something useful:
Instead of just searching for the first and last occurrences of X than you can do a binary search for the first occurence and a binary search for the last occurrence. which will result in O(lg(n)) total. once you've done that, you'll know that all the between indexes also contain X(assuming that it's sorted)
You can do this by searching checking if the value is equal to x , AND checking if the value to the left(or right depending on whether you're looking for the first occurrence or the last occurrence) is equal to x.

public void PrintIndicesForValue42(int[] sortedArrayOfInts) {
int index_occurrence_of_42 = left = right = binarySearch(sortedArrayOfInts, 42);
while (left - 1 >= 0) {
if (sortedArrayOfInts[left-1] == 42)
left--;
}
while (right + 1 < sortedArrayOfInts.length) {
if (sortedArrayOfInts[right+1] == 42)
right++;
}
System.out.println("Indices are from: " + left + " to " + right);
}
This would run in O(log(n) + #occurrences)
Read and understand the code. It's simple enough.

Below is the java code which returns the range for which the search-key is spread in the given sorted array:
public static int doBinarySearchRec(int[] array, int start, int end, int n) {
if (start > end) {
return -1;
}
int mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
if (n == array[mid]) {
return mid;
} else if (n < array[mid]) {
return doBinarySearchRec(array, start, mid - 1, n);
} else {
return doBinarySearchRec(array, mid + 1, end, n);
}
}
/**
* Given a sorted array with duplicates and a number, find the range in the
* form of (startIndex, endIndex) of that number. For example,
*
* find_range({0 2 3 3 3 10 10}, 3) should return (2,4). find_range({0 2 3 3
* 3 10 10}, 6) should return (-1,-1). The array and the number of
* duplicates can be large.
*
*/
public static int[] binarySearchArrayWithDup(int[] array, int n) {
if (null == array) {
return null;
}
int firstMatch = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, array.length - 1, n);
int[] resultArray = { -1, -1 };
if (firstMatch == -1) {
return resultArray;
}
int leftMost = firstMatch;
int rightMost = firstMatch;
for (int result = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, leftMost - 1, n); result != -1;) {
leftMost = result;
result = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, leftMost - 1, n);
}
for (int result = doBinarySearchRec(array, rightMost + 1, array.length - 1, n); result != -1;) {
rightMost = result;
result = doBinarySearchRec(array, rightMost + 1, array.length - 1, n);
}
resultArray[0] = leftMost;
resultArray[1] = rightMost;
return resultArray;
}

Another result for log(n) binary search for leftmost target and rightmost target. This is in C++, but I think it is quite readable.
The idea is that we always end up when left = right + 1. So, to find leftmost target, if we can move right to rightmost number which is less than target, left will be at the leftmost target.
For leftmost target:
int binary_search(vector<int>& nums, int target){
int n = nums.size();
int left = 0, right = n - 1;
// carry right to the greatest number which is less than target.
while(left <= right){
int mid = (left + right) / 2;
if(nums[mid] < target)
left = mid + 1;
else
right = mid - 1;
}
// when we are here, right is at the index of greatest number
// which is less than target and since left is at the next,
// it is at the first target's index
return left;
}
For the rightmost target, the idea is very similar:
int binary_search(vector<int>& nums, int target){
while(left <= right){
int mid = (left + right) / 2;
// carry left to the smallest number which is greater than target.
if(nums[mid] <= target)
left = mid + 1;
else
right = mid - 1;
}
// when we are here, left is at the index of smallest number
// which is greater than target and since right is at the next,
// it is at the first target's index
return right;
}

I came up with the solution using binary search, only thing is to do the binary search on both the sides if the match is found.
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a[] ={1,2,2,5,5,6,8,9,10};
System.out.println(2+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a, 0, a.length-1, 2));
System.out.println(5+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a, 0, a.length-1, 5));
int a1[] ={2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2};
System.out.println(2+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a1, 0, a1.length-1, 2));
int a2[] ={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
System.out.println(10+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a2, 0, a2.length-1, 10));
}
public static String findDuplicateOfN(int[] a, int l, int h, int x){
if(l>h){
return "";
}
int m = (h-l)/2+l;
if(a[m] == x){
String matchedIndexs = ""+m;
matchedIndexs = matchedIndexs+findDuplicateOfN(a, l, m-1, x);
matchedIndexs = matchedIndexs+findDuplicateOfN(a, m+1, h, x);
return matchedIndexs;
}else if(a[m]>x){
return findDuplicateOfN(a, l, m-1, x);
}else{
return findDuplicateOfN(a, m+1, h, x);
}
}
2 IS AVAILABLE AT = 12
5 IS AVAILABLE AT = 43
2 IS AVAILABLE AT = 410236578
10 IS AVAILABLE AT =
I think this is still providing the results in O(logn) complexity.

A Hashmap might work, if you're not required to use a binary search.
Create a HashMap where the Key is the value itself, and then value is an array of indices where that value is in the array. Loop through your array, updating each array in the HashMap for each value.
Lookup time for the indices for each value will be ~ O(1), and creating the map itself will be ~ O(n).

Find_Key(int arr[], int size, int key){
int begin = 0;
int end = size - 1;
int mid = end / 2;
int res = INT_MIN;
while (begin != mid)
{
if (arr[mid] < key)
begin = mid;
else
{
end = mid;
if(arr[mid] == key)
res = mid;
}
mid = (end + begin )/2;
}
return res;
}
Assuming the array of ints is in ascending sorted order; Returns the index of the first index of key occurrence or INT_MIN. Runs in O(lg n).

It is using Modified Binary Search. It will be O(LogN). Space complexity will be O(1).
We are calling BinarySearchModified two times. One for finding start index of element and another for finding end index of element.
private static int BinarySearchModified(int[] input, double toSearch)
{
int start = 0;
int end = input.Length - 1;
while (start <= end)
{
int mid = start + (end - start)/2;
if (toSearch < input[mid]) end = mid - 1;
else start = mid + 1;
}
return start;
}
public static Result GetRange(int[] input, int toSearch)
{
if (input == null) return new Result(-1, -1);
int low = BinarySearchModified(input, toSearch - 0.5);
if ((low >= input.Length) || (input[low] != toSearch)) return new Result(-1, -1);
int high = BinarySearchModified(input, toSearch + 0.5);
return new Result(low, high - 1);
}
public struct Result
{
public int LowIndex;
public int HighIndex;
public Result(int low, int high)
{
LowIndex = low;
HighIndex = high;
}
}

public void printCopies(int[] array)
{
HashMap<Integer, Integer> memberMap = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.size; i++)
if(!memberMap.contains(array[i]))
memberMap.put(array[i], 1);
else
{
int temp = memberMap.get(array[i]); //get the number of occurances
memberMap.put(array[i], ++temp); //increment his occurance
}
//check keys which occured more than once
//dump them in a ArrayList
//return this ArrayList
}
Alternatevely, instead of counting the number of occurances, you can put their indices in a arraylist and put that in the map instead of the count.
HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>>
//the integer is the value, the arraylist a list of their indices
public void printCopies(int[] array)
{
HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>> memberMap = new HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.size; i++)
if(!memberMap.contains(array[i]))
{
ArrayList temp = new ArrayList();
temp.add(i);
memberMap.put(array[i], temp);
}
else
{
ArrayList temp = memberMap.get(array[i]); //get the lsit of indices
temp.add(i);
memberMap.put(array[i], temp); //update the index list
}
//check keys which return lists with length > 1
//handle the result any way you want
}
heh, i guess this will have to be posted.
int predefinedDuplicate = //value here;
int index = Arrays.binarySearch(array, predefinedDuplicate);
int leftIndex, rightIndex;
//search left
for(leftIndex = index; array[leftIndex] == array[index]; leftIndex--); //let it run thru it
//leftIndex is now the first different element to the left of this duplicate number string
for(rightIndex = index; array[rightIndex] == array[index]; rightIndex++); //let it run thru it
//right index contains the first different element to the right of the string
//you can arraycopy this [leftIndex+1, rightIndex-1] string or just print it
for(int i = leftIndex+1; i<rightIndex; i++)
System.out.println(array[i] + "\t");

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.