Difference between revisions of "Talk:TADM2E 3.11"
From Algorithm Wiki
SriPrasanna (talk | contribs) |
(→a counterexample for 3.11 b: new section) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Why cant we just sort the input (array)? Will this not mean the smallest number between x and y is always x? | Why cant we just sort the input (array)? Will this not mean the smallest number between x and y is always x? | ||
| + | |||
| + | == a counterexample for 3.11 b == | ||
| + | |||
| + | for this input = [0,1,...,98,99] and this query i = 1, j = 99. | ||
| + | |||
| + | the suggested algorithm will always span in both sides - right and left, so according to the suggested solution it will always split the task to 2. | ||
| + | that means that if h is the height of the tree the query time is going to be O(2^h) | ||
| + | |||
| + | now h = log(n) so it's 2^log(n) = n | ||
| + | |||
| + | for O(n) cost we can simply iterate over all the values in the given range and find the minimum... | ||
Revision as of 19:33, 6 December 2017
For the answer given in part 2, the space required seems to be the sum from 1 to n of n which is n(n+1)/2. This gives O(n**2) for space requirements. Doesn't it?
Why cant we just sort the input (array)? Will this not mean the smallest number between x and y is always x?
a counterexample for 3.11 b
for this input = [0,1,...,98,99] and this query i = 1, j = 99.
the suggested algorithm will always span in both sides - right and left, so according to the suggested solution it will always split the task to 2. that means that if h is the height of the tree the query time is going to be O(2^h)
now h = log(n) so it's 2^log(n) = n
for O(n) cost we can simply iterate over all the values in the given range and find the minimum...
