Unformatted text preview: Introduction to Algorithms Massachusetts Institute of Technology Singapore-MIT Alliance Professors Erik Demaine, Lee Wee Sun, and Charles E. Leiserson Day 14 6.046J/18.410J SMA5503 Handout 17 Problem Set 3 Solutions
MIT students: This problem set is due in lecture on Day 11. Reading: Chapters 8 and 9 Both exercises and problems should be solved, but only the problems should be turned in. Exercises are intended to help you master the course material. Even though you should not turn in the exercise solutions, you are responsible for material covered by the exercises. Mark the top of each sheet with your name, the course number, the problem number, your recitation instructor and time, the date, and the names of any students with whom you collaborated. MIT students: Each problem should be done on a separate sheet (or sheets) of three-hole punched paper. You will often be called upon to "give an algorithm" to solve a certain problem. Your write-up should take the form of a short essay. A topic paragraph should summarize the problem you are solving and what your results are. The body of your essay should provide the following: 1. A description of the algorithm in English and, if helpful, pseudocode. 2. At least one worked example or diagram to show more precisely how your algorithm works. 3. A proof (or indication) of the correctness of the algorithm. 4. An analysis of the running time of the algorithm. Remember, your goal is to communicate. Graders will be instructed to take off points for convo luted and obtuse descriptions. Exercise 3-1. Do exercise 8.1-2 on page 167 of CLRS. Exercise 3-2. Do exercise 8.1-3 on page 168 of CLRS. 2 Exercise 3-3. Do exercise 8.2-3 on page 170 of CLRS. Exercise 3-4. Do exercise 8.4-2 on page 177 of CLRS. Exercise 3-5. Do exercise 9.3-1 on page 192 of CLRS. Handout 17: Problem Set 3 Solutions Exercise 3-6. Show that the second smallest of n elements can be found with n + (lg n) com parisons in the worst case. (Hint: Also find the smallest element.) Problem 3-1. Largest i numbers in sorted order Given a set of n numbers, we wish to find the i largest in sorted order using a comparison-based algorithm. Find the algorithm that implements each of the following methods with the best asymp totic worst-case running time, and analyze the running times of the algorithms in terms of n and i. (a) Sort the numbers, and list the i largest. Solution: Use any optimal sorting algorithm, such as MergeSort or HeapSort. Then this can be done in (n lg n). (b) Build a max-priority queue from the numbers, and call E XTRACT-M AX i times. Solution: Call Build-Heap, (n). Then call Extract-Max, (lg i), i times. So, total running time is (n + i lg i). (c) Use an order-statistic algorithm to find the ith largest number, partition around that number, and sort the i largest numbers. Solution: Select the i-th largest number using SELECT, (n), call partition, (n), and then sort the i largest numbers, (i lg i). So our algorithm takes (n + i lg i). Problem 3-2. At the wading pool You work at a summer camp which holds regular outings for the n children which attend. One of these outings is to a nearby wading pool which always turns out to be something of a nightmare at the end because there are n wet, cranky children and a pile of 2n shoes (n left shoes and n right shoes) and it is not at all clear which kids go with which shoes. Not being particularly picky, all you care about is getting kids into shoes that fit. The only way to determine if a shoe is a match for a child is to try the shoe on the child's foot. After trying on the shoe, you will know that it either fits, is too big, or is too small. It is important to note that you cannot accurately compare children's feet directly with each other, nor can you compare the shoes. You know that for every kid, there are at least two shoes (one left shoe and one right shoe) that will fit, and your task is to shoe all of the children efficiently so that you can go home. There are enough shoes that each child will find a pair which fits her. Assume that each comparison (trying a shoe on a foot) takes one time unit. Handout 17: Problem Set 3 Solutions (a) Describe a deterministic algorithm that uses (n2 ) comparisons to pair children with shoes. Solution: For each child, try on all the shoes until you find the two shoes that fit. T (n) = T (n - 2) + O(n) = (n2 ). (b) Prove a lower bound of (n lg n) for the number of comparisons that must be made by an algorithm solving this problem. (Hint: How many leaves does the decision tree have?) Solution: There are n! ways that left shoes can be assigned to children and n! ways that right shoes can be assigned to children. So the decision tree should have n!2 leaves. n!2 n! h lg(n!) h lg ( n
)n by Stirling's Approximation e = n lg n - n lg e = (n lg n) (c) How might you partition the children into those with a smaller shoe size than a "pivot" child, and those with a larger shoe size than the pivot child? Solution: Take the pivot child and try on all the shoes until you find one that fits. This should take (n) time as there are 2n shoes. Then try the shoe on all the children. If the shoe is too small, then they have larger feet than the pivot child. If the shoe is too big, then they have smaller feet than the pivot child. This should also take (n) time making our partition algorithm run in linear time. (d) Give a randomized algorithm whose expected number of comparisons is O(n lg n), and prove that this bound is correct. What is the worst-case number of comparisons for your algorithm? Solution: This is similar to quicksort. Pick a random child. Partition the children around that child as in part (c). Then take the shoe you used to partition the children and partition the shoes around it. Take the two shoes and pivot child and put them in the group of paired children. Then recurse on the two groups of shoes and children. This should have the same analysis as randomized quicksort because we have only added an extra call to partition which will still make the work done at each level (n). 3 ...
View Full Document
- Fall '04
- Algorithms, Analysis of algorithms, LG, CLRS