Develop Reference

Largest Divisor of N (Excluding Itself)

I'm trying to divide a list into sublists that are as large as possible. If the list can not be divided in such a way, I will handle it as needed, but I need get the largest number besides N itself that divides N evenly.
I wrote a really naive solution, but I feel like there should be maybe a formula or something to do this in constant time. My list are not that big, maximum size is 1000. This probably isn't the critical path, but is there a better algorithm?
public static int largestDivisor(int n){
int divisor = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n/2; i++)
if (n % i == 0)
divisor = i;
return divisor;
}

Iterate the values in reverse. Simply return the first one you find (it'll be the greatest). Something like,
public static int largestDivisor(int n) {
for (int i = n / 2; i >= 2; i--) {
if (n % i == 0) {
return i;
}
}
return 1;
}
Alternatively, you might make a slight improvement to #WillemVanOnsem's answer and start with odd values like;
public static int largestDivisor(int n) {
if (n % 2 == 0) {
return n / 2;
}
final int sqrtn = (int) Math.sqrt(n);
for (int i = 3; i <= sqrtn; i += 2) {
if (n % i == 0) {
return n / i;
}
}
return 1;
}

I don't know if you can do this in constant time, but you can certainly do it in less time than this.
Start with 2, and loop through all numbers, checking if n is divisible by that number. When you get to a number that divides n, then you can stop - your answer is n/i. If you get to the end and it still doesn't divide, then n is prime and the answer is just 1.
Instead of ending at n/2 if you don't find a divisor, you can end at √n with this method, which will reduce the big O.
Also, you could start with checking if it's divisible by 2, then go to 3 and only check the odd numbers from there. (If it was divisible by an even number, then it was divisible by 2.) That won't change the big O, but it should cut the processing time almost in half since you're only checking about half the divisors.

You know that if a is dividable by b, it is also dividable by a/b and the smaller b is, the larger is a/b, so once you have found the divisor, return n/divisor:
public static int largestDivisor(int n){
for(int i = 2; i <= n/2; i++)
if(n % i == 0) {
return n/divisor;
}
}
return 0; //or whatever you decide to return if there is no such divisor
}
This is also faster because:
divisors tend to become more rare the larger they get; and
you can already give up at sqrt(n).
So the most efficient approach would be:
public static int largestDivisor(int n){
int sqrtn = (int) Math.sqrt(n);
for(int i = 2; i <= sqrtn; i++)
if(n % i == 0) {
return n/divisor;
}
}
return 0;
}

O(log n) Programming

I am trying to prepare for a contest but my program speed is always dreadfully slow as I use O(n). First of all, I don't even know how to make it O(log n), or I've never heard about this paradigm. Where can I learn about this?
For example,
If you had an integer array with zeroes and ones, such as [ 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ], and now you wanted to replace every 0 with 1 only if one of it's neighbors has the value of 1, what is the most efficient way to go about doing if this must occur t number of times? (The program must do this for a number of t times)
EDIT:
Here's my inefficient solution:
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Main {
static Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n;
long t;
n = input.nextInt();
t = input.nextLong();
input.nextLine();
int[] units = new int[n + 2];
String inputted = input.nextLine();
input.close();
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
units[i] = Integer.parseInt((""+inputted.charAt(i - 1)));
}
int[] original;
for(int j = 0; j <= t -1; j++) {
units[0] = units[n];
units[n + 1] = units[1];
original = units.clone();
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
if(((original[i - 1] == 0) && (original[i + 1] == 1)) || ((original[i - 1] == 1) && (original[i + 1] == 0))) {
units[i] = 1;
} else {
units[i] = 0;
}
}
}
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
System.out.print(units[i]);
}
}
}

This is an elementary cellular automaton. Such a dynamical system has properties that you can use for your advantages. In your case, for example, you can set to value 1 every cell at distance at most t from any initial value 1 (cone of light property). Then you may do something like:
get a 1 in the original sequence, say it is located at position p.
set to 1 every position from p-t to p+t.
You may then take as your advantage in the next step that you've already set position p-t to p+t... This can let you compute the final step t without computing intermediary steps (good factor of acceleration isn't it?).
You can also use some tricks as HashLife, see 1.

As I was saying in the comments, I'm fairly sure you can keep out the array and clone operations.
You can modify a StringBuilder in-place, so no need to convert back and forth between int[] and String.
For example, (note: This is on the order of an O(n) operation for all T <= N)
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(conway1d("0000001", 7, 1));
System.out.println(conway1d("01011", 5, 3));
}
private static String conway1d(CharSequence input, int N, long T) {
System.out.println("Generation 0: " + input);
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(input); // Will update this for all generations
StringBuilder copy = new StringBuilder(); // store a copy to reference current generation
for (int gen = 1; gen <= T; gen++) {
// Copy over next generation string
copy.setLength(0);
copy.append(input);
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
conwayUpdate(sb, copy, i, N);
}
input = sb.toString(); // next generation string
System.out.printf("Generation %d: %s\n", gen, input);
}
return input.toString();
}
private static void conwayUpdate(StringBuilder nextGen, final StringBuilder currentGen, int charPos, int N) {
int prev = (N + (charPos - 1)) % N;
int next = (charPos + 1) % N;
// **Exactly one** adjacent '1'
boolean adjacent = currentGen.charAt(prev) == '1' ^ currentGen.charAt(next) == '1';
nextGen.setCharAt(charPos, adjacent ? '1' : '0'); // set cell as alive or dead
}
For the two samples in the problem you posted in the comments, this code generates this output.
Generation 0: 0000001
Generation 1: 1000010
1000010
Generation 0: 01011
Generation 1: 00011
Generation 2: 10111
Generation 3: 10100
10100

The BigO notation is a simplification to understand the complexity of the Algorithm. Basically, two algorithms O(n) can have very different execution times. Why? Let's unroll your example:
You have two nested loops. The outer loop will run t times.
The inner loop will run n times
For each time the loop executes, it will take a constant k time.
So, in essence your algorithm is O(k * t * n). If t is in the same order of magnitude of n, then you can consider the complexity as O(k * n^2).
There is two approaches to optimize this algorithm:
Reduce the constant time k. For example, do not clone the whole array on each loop, because it is very time consuming (clone needs to do a full array loop to clone).
The second optimization in this case is to use Dynamic Programing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming) that can cache information between two loops and optimize the execution, that can lower k or even lower the complexity from O(nˆ2) to O(n * log n).

Max Double Slice Sum codility O(1) space complexity fail performance test case

I was trying figure out why the below solution failed for a single performance test case for the 'Max Double Slice Sum' problem in the codility website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/max_double_slice_sum
There is another solution O(n) space complexity which is easier to comprehend overhere: Max double slice sum. But i am just wondering why this O(1) solution doesn't work. Below is the actual code:
import java.util.*;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
long maxDS = 0;
long maxDSE = 0;
long maxS = A[1];
for(int i=2; i<A.length-1; ++i){
//end at i-index
maxDSE = Math.max(maxDSE+A[i], maxS);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE);
maxS = Math.max(A[i], maxS + A[i]);
}
return (int)maxDS;
}
}
The idea is simple as follow:
The problem can be readdress as finding max(A[i]+A[i+1]+...+A[j]-A[m]); 1<=i<=m<=j<=n-2; while n = A.length; we call A[m] is missing element within the slice.
maxS[i] will keep max slice which end at current index i; in other words, = max(A[t] + ... + A[i]); while t < i; so when i=1; maxS = A[1]; Note that in solution, we don't keep array but rather latest maxS at current index (See above code).
maxDSE[i] is max of all double slice which end at i; in other words, = max(A[t]+A[t+1]+...+A[i]-A[m])--end at A[i]; maxDS is the final max of double slice sum which we try to find.
Now, we just use a for-loop from i=2; -> i=A.length-2; For each index i, we notice some findings:
If the missing element is A[i], then maxDSE[i] = maxS[i-1] (max sum of
all slice which end at i-1 => or A[t] + ... + A[i] - A[i]);
If missing element is not A[i] -> so it must be somewhere from A[1]->A[i-1] -> maxDSE = maxDSE[i-1] + A[i]; such as A[t] + ... + A[i] - A[m] (not that A[i] must be last element) with t
so maxDSE[i] = Math.max(maxDSE[i-1]+A[i], maxS[i-1]);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE); max amount all maxDSE;
and maxS[i] = Math.max(A[i], maxS[i-1]+A[i]);
by that way, maxDS will be the final result.
But strange that, I was only able to get 92%; with one failed performance test case as shown here:
medium_range
-1000, ..., 1000
WRONG ANSWER
got 499499 expected 499500
Could anyone please enlighten me where is problem in my solution? Thanks!

Ok, I found the error with my code. Seems that I forgot one corner cases. When calculate DSE[i], in cases A[i] is missing number, maxS should contain the case when array is empty. In other word, maxS should be calculated as:
maxS[i] = Math.max(0, Math.max(A[i]+maxS[i-1], A[i])); while 0 is for case of empty subarray (end at i-th); Math.max(A[i]+maxS[i-1], A[i]) is max of all slice with at least one element (end at i-index). The complete code as follow:
import java.util.*;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
long maxDS = 0;
long maxDSE = 0;
long maxS = A[1];
for(int i=2; i<A.length-1; ++i){
maxDSE = Math.max(maxDSE+A[i], maxS);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE);
maxS = Math.max(0, Math.max(A[i], maxS + A[i]));
}
return (int)maxDS;
}
}

It seems that for the input [-11, -53, -4, 38, 76, 80], your solution doesn't work. Yes, it tricks all the codility test cases, but I managed to trick all codility test cases for other problems too.
If you don't just want to trick codility, but also you want to come with a good solution, I suggest that you create a loop and a large number of random test cases (in number of elements and element values), and create a test method of your own, that you are sure works (even if the complexity is quadratic), compare the results from both methods and then analyze the current random input that doesn't fit.

Here is clear solution. Best approach is to use algorithm of Kanade O(N) and O(1) by space
public class DuplicateDetermineAlgorithm {
public static boolean isContainsDuplicate(int[] array) {
if (array == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Input array can not be null");
}
if (array.length < 2) {
return false;
}
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
int pointer = convertToPositive(array[i]) - 1;
if (array[pointer] > 0) {
array[pointer] = changeSign(array[pointer]);
} else {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
private static int convertToPositive(int value) {
return value < 0 ? changeSign(value) : value;
}
private static int changeSign(int value) {
return -1 * value;
}
}

I have coded it in vb.net and got 100/100 getting idea form solution by Guillermo
Private Function solution(A As Integer()) As Integer
' write your code in VB.NET 4.0
Dim Slice1() As Integer = Ending(A)
Dim slice2() As Integer = Starting(A)
Dim maxSUM As Integer = 0
For i As Integer = 1 To A.Length - 2
maxSUM = Math.Max(maxSUM, Slice1(i - 1) + slice2(i + 1))
Next
Return maxSUM
End Function
Public Shared Function Ending(input() As Integer) As Integer()
Dim result As Integer() = New Integer(input.Length - 1) {}
result(0) = InlineAssignHelper(result(input.Length - 1), 0)
For i As Integer = 1 To input.Length - 2
result(i) = Math.Max(0, result(i - 1) + input(i))
Next
Return result
End Function
Public Shared Function Starting(input() As Integer) As Integer()
Dim result As Integer() = New Integer(input.Length - 1) {}
result(0) = InlineAssignHelper(result(input.Length - 1), 0)
For i As Integer = input.Length - 2 To 1 Step -1
result(i) = Math.Max(0, result(i + 1) + input(i))
Next
Return result
End Function
Private Shared Function InlineAssignHelper(Of T)(ByRef target As T, value As T) As T
target = value
Return value
End Function
Visit Codility to see the results

collatz sequence - optimising code

As an additional question to an assignment, we were asked to find the 10 starting numbers (n) that produce the longest collatz sequence. (Where 0 < n < 10,000,000,000) I wrote code that would hopefully accomplish this, but I estimate that it would take a full 11 hours to compute an answer.
I have noticed a couple of small optimisations like starting from biggest to smallest so adding to the array is done less, and only computing between 10,000,000,000/2^10 (=9765625) and 10,000,000,000 because there has to be 10 sequences of longer length, but I can't see anything more I could do. Can anyone help?
Relevant Code
The Sequence Searching Alg
long[][] longest = new long[2][10]; //terms/starting number
long max = 10000000000l; //10 billion
for(long i = max; i >= 9765625; i--) {
long n = i;
long count = 1; //terms in the sequence
while(n > 1) {
if((n & 1) == 0) n /= 2; //checks if the last bit is a 0
else {
n = (3*n + 1)/2;
count++;
}
count++;
}
if(count > longest[0][9]) {
longest = addToArray(count, i, longest);
currentBest(longest); //prints the currently stored top 10
}
}
The storage alg
public static long[][] addToArray(long count, long i, long[][] longest) {
int pos = 0;
while(count < longest[0][pos]) {
pos++;
}
long TEMP = count; //terms
long TEMPb = i; //starting number
for(int a = pos; a < longest[0].length; a++) {
long TEMP2 = longest[0][a];
longest[0][a] = TEMP;
TEMP = TEMP2;
long TEMP2b = longest[1][a];
longest[1][a] = TEMPb;
TEMPb = TEMP2b;
}
return longest;
}

You can do something like
while (true) {
int ntz = Long.numberOfTrailingZeros(n);
count += ntz;
n >>>= ntz; // Using unsigned shift allows to work with bigger numbers.
if (n==1) break;
n = 3*n + 1;
count++;
}
which should be faster as it does multiple steps at once and avoids unpredictable branches. numberOfTrailingZeros is JVM intrinsic taking just one cycle on modern desktop CPUs. However, it's not very efficient as the average number of zeros is only 2.
The Wikipedia explains how to do multiple steps at once. This is based on the observation that knowing k least significant bits is sufficient to determine the future steps up to the point when the k-th halving happens. My best result based on this (with k=17) and filtering out some non-promising values is 57 seconds for the determination of the maximum in range 1 .. 1e10.

violating the given average time complexity in Big-O notation

I am trying to Implement a solutions to find k-th largest element in a given integer list with duplicates with O(N*log(N)) average time complexity in Big-O notation, where N is the number of elements in the list.
As per my understanding Merge-sort has an average time complexity of O(N*log(N)) however in my below code I am actually using an extra for loop along with mergesort algorithm to delete duplicates which is definitely violating my rule of find k-th largest element with O(N*log(N)). How do I go about it by achieving my task O(N*log(N)) average time complexity in Big-O notation?
public class FindLargest {
public static void nthLargeNumber(int[] arr, String nthElement) {
mergeSort_srt(arr, 0, arr.length - 1);
// remove duplicate elements logic
int b = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[b] != arr[i]) {
b++;
arr[b] = arr[i];
}
}
int bbb = Integer.parseInt(nthElement) - 1;
// printing second highest number among given list
System.out.println("Second highest number is::" + arr[b - bbb]);
}
public static void mergeSort_srt(int array[], int lo, int n) {
int low = lo;
int high = n;
if (low >= high) {
return;
}
int middle = (low + high) / 2;
mergeSort_srt(array, low, middle);
mergeSort_srt(array, middle + 1, high);
int end_low = middle;
int start_high = middle + 1;
while ((lo <= end_low) && (start_high <= high)) {
if (array[low] < array[start_high]) {
low++;
} else {
int Temp = array[start_high];
for (int k = start_high - 1; k >= low; k--) {
array[k + 1] = array[k];
}
array[low] = Temp;
low++;
end_low++;
start_high++;
}
}
}
public static void main(String... str) {
String nthElement = "2";
int[] intArray = { 1, 9, 5, 7, 2, 5 };
FindLargest.nthLargeNumber(intArray, nthElement);
}
}

Your only problem here is that you don't understand how to do the time analysis. If you have one routine which takes O(n) and one which takes O(n*log(n)), running both takes a total of O(n*log(n)). Thus your code runs in O(n*log(n)) like you want.
To do things formally, we would note that the definition of O() is as follows:
f(x) ∈ O(g(x)) if and only if there exists values c > 0 and y such that f(x) < cg(x) whenever x > y.
Your merge sort is in O(n*log(n)) which tells us that its running time is bounded above by c1*n*log(n) when n > y1 for some c1,y1. Your duplication elimination is in O(n) which tells us that its running time is bounded above by c2*n when n > y2 for some c2 and y2. Using this, we can know that the total running time of the two is bounded above by c1*n*log(n)+c2*n when n > max(y1,y2). We know that c1*n*log(n)+c2*n < c1*n*log(n)+c2*n*log(n) because log(n) > 1, and this, of course simplifies to (c1+c2)*n*log(n). Thus, we can know that the running time of the two together is bounded above by (c1+c2)*n*log(n) when n > max(y1,y2) and thus, using c1+c2 as our c and max(y1,y2) as our y, we know that the running time of the two together is in O(n*log(n)).
Informally, you can just know that faster growing functions always dominate, so if one piece of code is O(n) and the second is O(n^2), the combination is O(n^2). If one is O(log(n)) and the second is O(n), the combination is O(n). If one is O(n^20) and the second is O(n^19.99), the combination is O(n^20). If one is O(n^2000) and the second is O(2^n), the combination is O(2^n).

Problem here is your merge routine where you have used another loop which i donot understand why, Hence i would say your algorithm of merge O(n^2) which changes your merge sort time to O(n^2).
Here is a pseudo code for typical O(N) merge routine :-
void merge(int low,int high,int arr[]) {
int buff[high-low+1];
int i = low;
int mid = (low+high)/2;
int j = mid +1;
int k = 0;
while(i<=mid && j<=high) {
if(arr[i]<arr[j]) {
buff[k++] = arr[i];
i++;
}
else {
buff[k++] = arr[j];
j++;
}
}
while(i<=mid) {
buff[k++] = arr[i];
i++;
}
while(j<=high) {
buff[k++] = arr[j];
j++;
}
for(int x=0;x<k;x++) {
arr[low+x] = buff[x];
}
}