There are 1 billion stars and you are standing at earth. Form the earth you know the distance of all 1 billion stars. Find the nearest 1 million stars from the earth.
Thanks in advance.
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3993 |
2 | jiangly | 3743 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3707 |
4 | Radewoosh | 3627 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
6 | Benq | 3564 |
7 | Kevin114514 | 3443 |
8 | ksun48 | 3434 |
9 | Rewinding | 3397 |
10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | Um_nik | 163 |
3 | maomao90 | 162 |
3 | atcoder_official | 162 |
5 | adamant | 159 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
9 | nor | 153 |
There are 1 billion stars and you are standing at earth. Form the earth you know the distance of all 1 billion stars. Find the nearest 1 million stars from the earth.
Thanks in advance.
Название |
---|
If all stars are in an array, we assign each star a value equal to the distance of that star to earth. Then the median of medians algorithm finds the k-smallest element in O(n) time worst-case, and also partitions the array such that all elements smaller than the k-smallest element are left of it, and the elements larger are right of it (i.e. the k-smallest element is in position k in a 0-based array).
Note that this is asymptotically optimal, not necessarily faster in practice. An easier approach would be to just sort the array in O(n lg n).
Firstly, I wanna thank you for your comment.
Secondly, 1 billion is still a large number to store it in an array So i thought about another solution and I found this one out Using Binary Search Tree.
Cause I'm newbie with the Binary Search Tree I think this algorithm's complexity will be
O(nlog(n))
(Without printing)I dunno if This algorithm and its complexity are right or not.
O(m log(n)) where m is 1 billion, n is 1 million. Also, it's better to use a priority queue because it has O(1) access to the largest element, so some loop iterations will take O(1) instead of O(log n). Best case time (when all n largest elements are already in the beginning) will be O(m + n log(n)).
Have a sliding window of size 1 million and imagine it to be a max-heap. The problem boils down to finding K smallest elements from N elements where K is 1e6 and N is 1e9. When we slide the max heap over the billion distances, at the end of scan we will have nearest 1 million distances.
Steps : a) Add first K(1 million) distances into max-heap. b) For K+1 element, to add this into the heap, it needs to be smaller than the max heap root. If yes, extract-max and add this (K+1)th element into the heap and heapify. Else, continue scanning. c) At the end of scan, max heap has the answer.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Complexity(worst case) : (N-K) extracts from Max heap and heapify = (N-K) log(K) plus O(K) for build Heap with K elements to begin with. => O(K+ (N-K) logK)
You may do it in O(n). Add elements one by one. When there's 2k elements run nth_element and remove k of them
I can't understand what you want to say.
Could you write a Pseudocode for your idea, please?! riadwaw
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/nth_element/
nth_element itself only o(n) in average but afaik it's possible to find median in O(n) in worst case too (and if you have a median you may easily rearrange elements as nth_elements do.