Solution to Exercise 2.2-2
SELECTION-SORT(A)
n = A.length
for j = 1 to n - 1
smallest = j
for i = j + 1 to n
if A[i] < A[smallest]
smallest = i
exchange A[j] with A[smallest]
The algorithm maintains the loop invariant that at the start of each iteration of the outer for loop, the subarray A[1..j - 1] consists of the j -1 smallest elements in the array A[1..n], and this subarray is in sorted order. After the first n - 1 elements, the subarray A[1..n-1] contains the smallest n - 1 elements, sorted, and therefore element A[n] must be the largest element.
The running time of the algorithm is θ(n^2) for all cases.
Solution to Exercise 2.2-4
Modify the algorithm so it tests whether the input satisfies some special-case condition and, if it does, output a pre-computed answer. The best-case running time is generally not a good measure of an algorithm.
Solution to Exercise 2.3-5
Procedure BINARY-SEARCH takes a sorted array A, a value v, and a rang[low..high] of the array, in which we search for the value v. The procedure compare v to the array entry at the mid point of the range and decides to eliminate half the range from further consideration. We give both iterative and recursive versions, each of which returns either an index i such that A[i] = v, or NIL if no entry of A[low..high] contains the value v. The initial call to either version should have the parameters A, v, 1, n.
ITERATIVE-BINARY-SEARCH(A, v, low, high)
while low<=high
mid = ⌊(low + high) / 2⌋
if v == A[mid]
return mid
elseif v > A[mid]
low = mid + 1
else high = mid - 1
return NIL
RECURSIVE-BINARY-SEARCH(A, v, low, high)
if low > high
return NIL
mid =⌊(low + high) / 2⌋
if v == A[mid]
return mid
elseif v > A[mid]
return RECURSIVE-BINARY-SEARCH(A, v, mid + 1, high)
else return RECURSIVE-BINARY-SEARCH(A, v, low, mid - 1)
Both procedures terminate the search unsuccessfully when the range is empty (i.e., low > high) and terminate it successfully if the value v has been found. Based on the comparison of v to the middle element in the searched range, the search continues with the range halved. The recurrence for the these procedures is therefore T(n) = T(n/2) + θ(1), whose solution is T(n) = θ(lgn).
Solution to Problem 2-4
a. The inversions are (1,5), (2,5), (3,4), (3,5), (4,5). (Remember that inversions are specified by indices rather than by the values in the array.)
b. The array with elements from {1, 2, . . . , n} with the most inversions is <n, n - 1, n - 2, . . . , 2, 1>. For all 1 <= i <= j <= n, there is an inversion (i, j). The number of such inversions is n(n - 1)/2.
c. Suppose that the array A starts out with an inversion (k, j). Then k < j and A[k] > A[j]. At the time that the outer for loop of lines 1-8 sets key = A[j], the value that started in A[k] is still somewhere to the left of A[j]. That is, it's in A[i], where 1 <= i < j, and so the inversion has become (i, j). Some iteration of the while loop of lines 5-7 moves A[i] one position to the right. Line 8 will eventually drop key to the left of this element , thus eliminating the inversion. Because line 5 moves only elements that are less than key, it moves only elements that correspond to inversions. In other words, each iteration of the while loop of lines 5-7 corresponds to the elimination of one inversion.
d. We follow the hint and modify merge sort to count the number of inversions in θ(n lgn) time.
To start, let us define a merge-inversion as a situation within the execution of merge sort in which the MERGE procedure, after copying A[p . . q] to L and A[q+1 .. r] to R, has values x in L and y in R such that x > y, Consider an inversion (i, j), and let x = A[i] and y = A[j], so that i < j and x > y. We claim that if we were to run merge sort, there would be exactly one merge-inversion involving x and y. To see why, observe that the only way in which array elements change their position is within the MERGE procedure. Moreover, since MERGE keeps elements within L in the same relative order to each other, and correspondingly for R, the only way in which two elements can change their ordering relative to each other is for the greater one to appear in L and the lesser one to appear in R. Thus, there is at least one merge-inversion involving x and y. To see that there is exactly one such merge-inversion, observe that after any call of MERGE that involves both x and y, they are in the same sorted subarray and will therefore both appear in L or both appear in R in any given call thereafter. Thus we have proven the claim.
We have shown that every inversion implies one merge-inversion. In fact, the correspondence between inversions and merge-inversion is one-to-one. Suppose we have a merge-inversion involving values x and y, where x originally was A[i] and y was originally A[j]. Since we have merge-inversion, x > y. And since x is in L and y is in R, x must be within a subarray preceding the subarray containing y . Therefore x started out in a position i preceding y's original position j, and so (i, j) is and inversion.
Having shown a one-to-one correspondence between inversions and merge-inversions, if suffices for us to count merge-inversions.
Consider a merge-inversion involving y in R. let z be the smallest value in L that is greater than y. At some point during the merging process, z and y will be the 'exposed' values in L and R, i.e., we will have z = L[i] and y = R[j] in line 13 of MERGE. At that time, there will be merge-inversions involving y and L[i], L[i + 1], L[i + 2], . . . , L[n1], and these n1 - i + 1 merge-inversions will be the only ones involving y. Therefore, we need to detect the first time that z and y become exposed during the MERGE procedure and add the value of n1 - i + 1 at that time to our total count of merge-inversions.
The following pseudocode, modeled on merge sort, works as we have just described. It also sort the array A.
COUNT-INVERSIONS(A, p, r)
inversions = 0
if p < r
q = ⌊(p + r) / 2⌋
inversions = inversions + COUNT-INVERSIONS(A, p, q)
inversions = inversions + COUNT-INVERSIONS(A, q + 1, r)
inversions = inversions + MERGE-INVERSION(A, p, q, r)
return inversions
MERGE-INVERSIONS(A, p, q, r)
n1 = q - p + 1
n2 = r - q
let L[1 . . n1 + 1] and R[1 . . n2 + 1]
for i = 1 to n1
L[i] = A[p + i - 1]
for j = 1 to n2
R[i] = A[q + j]
L[n1 + 1] = ∞
R[n2 + 1] = ∞
i = 1
j = 1
inversions = 0
counted = FALSE
for k = p to r
if counted == FALSE and R[j] < L[i]
inversions = inversion + n - i + 1
counted = TRUE
if L[i] <= R[j]
A[k] = L[i]
i = i + 1
else A[k] = R[j]
j = j + 1
counted = FALSE
return inversions
This initial call is COUNT-INVERSIONS(A, 1, n)
In MERGE-INVERSIONS, the boolean variable counted indicates whether we have counted the merge-inversions involving R[j]. We count them the first time that both R[j] is exposed and a value greater than R[j] becomes exposed in the L array. We set counted to FALSE upon each time that a new value becomes exposed in R. We don't have to worry about merge-inversions involving the sentinel ∞ in R, since no value in L will be greater than ∞.
Since we have added only a constant amount of additional work to each procedure call and to each iteration of the last for loop of the merging procedure, the total running time of the above pseudocode is the same as for merge sort: θ(n lgn).
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
