How to count in linear time worst-case? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Sorting a set of $n$ elements containing only $log n$ unique elementsIs there a sorting algorithm of order $n + k logk$?Priority queue with unique elements and sublinear time merge?Average Case runtime for random choice searchCan element uniqueness be solved in deterministic linear time?Building static hash table with particular collisionsDoes my simple, static hash table have O(1) worst case lookup?Sorting a set of $n$ elements containing only $log n$ unique elementsCan the HTML5 parsing algorithm be implemented in linear time?Optimal data structure for sorted listDetermine the worst-case complexity that allow you to conclude that a given array with n elements is not sortedFind four sets where each element from those four appears in at least two of those four sets
Expansion//Explosion and Siren Stormtamer
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
What's parked in Mil Moscow helicopter plant?
Change doc string summary of a function on the fly
Israeli soda type drink
Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?
Is it acceptable to use working hours to read general interest books?
Co-worker works way more than he should
Is accepting an invalid credit card number a security issue?
France's Public Holidays' Puzzle
Split coins into combinations of different denominations
c++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?
Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?
How long after the last departure shall the airport stay open for an emergency return?
How to open locks without disable device?
The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter?
Bright yellow or light yellow?
Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring
Do you need a weapon for Thunderous Smite, and the other 'Smite' spells?
Proper scheme such that every vector bundle is trivial
Is this homebrew racial feat, Stonehide, balanced?
Capturing a lambda in another lambda can violate const qualifiers
How to count in linear time worst-case?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Sorting a set of $n$ elements containing only $log n$ unique elementsIs there a sorting algorithm of order $n + k logk$?Priority queue with unique elements and sublinear time merge?Average Case runtime for random choice searchCan element uniqueness be solved in deterministic linear time?Building static hash table with particular collisionsDoes my simple, static hash table have O(1) worst case lookup?Sorting a set of $n$ elements containing only $log n$ unique elementsCan the HTML5 parsing algorithm be implemented in linear time?Optimal data structure for sorted listDetermine the worst-case complexity that allow you to conclude that a given array with n elements is not sortedFind four sets where each element from those four appears in at least two of those four sets
$begingroup$
This question and this question got me thinking a little bit. For sorting an array of length $n$ with $k$ unique elements in $O(n + k log k)$, we need to be able to store counts of values in the array. There are some suggestions, but I'm looking for a way to do this in worst case linear time. More specifically:
Given a list $A$ of $n$ elements with $k$ elements distinct, determine a list of tuples $U = (x_i, c_i)^k$ of all unique elements $x_i in A$ such that $c_i$ is the count of element $x_i$ in $A$.
Here are some (failed) ideas I've had and have been suggested:
Balanced Binary Search Tree - With this it will take $O(log k)$ to insert into the tree and increase values. After inserts we could do a tree traversal in $O(k)$. Thus, total time comes out to $O(n log k)$ which is too slow.
Hash Map - With this we can get $O(1)$ expected inserts and thus $O(n)$ expected time. However, this is still not $O(n)$ worst case.
Empty Space Mapping - Find the minimum and maximum element in $A$. Allocate (but do not initialize) enough memory to cover this range. Use this memory basically as a hash map and include a random hash so that we don't try to access corrupted memory. This strategy presents issues. (1) It's probabilistic with very very very low probability of failing, but still not guaranteed. Using memory like this limits us to floating-point or integer constraints.
Associative Arrays - There are many other associative arrays that can be used, similar to hash maps and BSTs, but I am not finding any that match these constraints.
Maybe there is some obvious method I am missing, but I also think it could be potentially not be possible. What are your thoughts?
algorithms search-trees hash-tables
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question and this question got me thinking a little bit. For sorting an array of length $n$ with $k$ unique elements in $O(n + k log k)$, we need to be able to store counts of values in the array. There are some suggestions, but I'm looking for a way to do this in worst case linear time. More specifically:
Given a list $A$ of $n$ elements with $k$ elements distinct, determine a list of tuples $U = (x_i, c_i)^k$ of all unique elements $x_i in A$ such that $c_i$ is the count of element $x_i$ in $A$.
Here are some (failed) ideas I've had and have been suggested:
Balanced Binary Search Tree - With this it will take $O(log k)$ to insert into the tree and increase values. After inserts we could do a tree traversal in $O(k)$. Thus, total time comes out to $O(n log k)$ which is too slow.
Hash Map - With this we can get $O(1)$ expected inserts and thus $O(n)$ expected time. However, this is still not $O(n)$ worst case.
Empty Space Mapping - Find the minimum and maximum element in $A$. Allocate (but do not initialize) enough memory to cover this range. Use this memory basically as a hash map and include a random hash so that we don't try to access corrupted memory. This strategy presents issues. (1) It's probabilistic with very very very low probability of failing, but still not guaranteed. Using memory like this limits us to floating-point or integer constraints.
Associative Arrays - There are many other associative arrays that can be used, similar to hash maps and BSTs, but I am not finding any that match these constraints.
Maybe there is some obvious method I am missing, but I also think it could be potentially not be possible. What are your thoughts?
algorithms search-trees hash-tables
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question and this question got me thinking a little bit. For sorting an array of length $n$ with $k$ unique elements in $O(n + k log k)$, we need to be able to store counts of values in the array. There are some suggestions, but I'm looking for a way to do this in worst case linear time. More specifically:
Given a list $A$ of $n$ elements with $k$ elements distinct, determine a list of tuples $U = (x_i, c_i)^k$ of all unique elements $x_i in A$ such that $c_i$ is the count of element $x_i$ in $A$.
Here are some (failed) ideas I've had and have been suggested:
Balanced Binary Search Tree - With this it will take $O(log k)$ to insert into the tree and increase values. After inserts we could do a tree traversal in $O(k)$. Thus, total time comes out to $O(n log k)$ which is too slow.
Hash Map - With this we can get $O(1)$ expected inserts and thus $O(n)$ expected time. However, this is still not $O(n)$ worst case.
Empty Space Mapping - Find the minimum and maximum element in $A$. Allocate (but do not initialize) enough memory to cover this range. Use this memory basically as a hash map and include a random hash so that we don't try to access corrupted memory. This strategy presents issues. (1) It's probabilistic with very very very low probability of failing, but still not guaranteed. Using memory like this limits us to floating-point or integer constraints.
Associative Arrays - There are many other associative arrays that can be used, similar to hash maps and BSTs, but I am not finding any that match these constraints.
Maybe there is some obvious method I am missing, but I also think it could be potentially not be possible. What are your thoughts?
algorithms search-trees hash-tables
$endgroup$
This question and this question got me thinking a little bit. For sorting an array of length $n$ with $k$ unique elements in $O(n + k log k)$, we need to be able to store counts of values in the array. There are some suggestions, but I'm looking for a way to do this in worst case linear time. More specifically:
Given a list $A$ of $n$ elements with $k$ elements distinct, determine a list of tuples $U = (x_i, c_i)^k$ of all unique elements $x_i in A$ such that $c_i$ is the count of element $x_i$ in $A$.
Here are some (failed) ideas I've had and have been suggested:
Balanced Binary Search Tree - With this it will take $O(log k)$ to insert into the tree and increase values. After inserts we could do a tree traversal in $O(k)$. Thus, total time comes out to $O(n log k)$ which is too slow.
Hash Map - With this we can get $O(1)$ expected inserts and thus $O(n)$ expected time. However, this is still not $O(n)$ worst case.
Empty Space Mapping - Find the minimum and maximum element in $A$. Allocate (but do not initialize) enough memory to cover this range. Use this memory basically as a hash map and include a random hash so that we don't try to access corrupted memory. This strategy presents issues. (1) It's probabilistic with very very very low probability of failing, but still not guaranteed. Using memory like this limits us to floating-point or integer constraints.
Associative Arrays - There are many other associative arrays that can be used, similar to hash maps and BSTs, but I am not finding any that match these constraints.
Maybe there is some obvious method I am missing, but I also think it could be potentially not be possible. What are your thoughts?
algorithms search-trees hash-tables
algorithms search-trees hash-tables
asked 2 hours ago
ryanryan
3,1991927
3,1991927
2
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago
2
2
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is a nice question.
In the comparison model or, what is more general, the algebraic decision-tree model, the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Theta(nlog n)$ time-complexity in the worst case as said in this Wikipedia article. So there is no algorithm to count distinct elements in linear time in the worst case, even without counting the duplicities.
However, it is not clear whether it can be done in another computational model. It seems unlikely in any reasonable deterministic computational model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There exist randomized algorithms whose expected running time is $O(n)$; or where the probability that the running time takes longer than $cn$ is exponentially small in $c$.
In particular, randomly choose a 2-universal hash function, then use it to hash all of the elements of the array. This achieves the stated running times, if you choose the length of the output of the 2-universal hash appropriately.
As another example, you can build a randomized algorithm whose worst-case running time is $O(n)$ (it always runs in linear time, no matter what) and has a probability of error of at most $1/2^100$. (How? Run the above algorithm, and terminate it if it runs longer than $cn$ steps for some appropriately chosen $c$.) In practice, that's good enough, as the probability that your computer outputs the wrong answer due to a cosmic ray is already much higher than $1/2^100$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108465%2fhow-to-count-in-linear-time-worst-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is a nice question.
In the comparison model or, what is more general, the algebraic decision-tree model, the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Theta(nlog n)$ time-complexity in the worst case as said in this Wikipedia article. So there is no algorithm to count distinct elements in linear time in the worst case, even without counting the duplicities.
However, it is not clear whether it can be done in another computational model. It seems unlikely in any reasonable deterministic computational model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a nice question.
In the comparison model or, what is more general, the algebraic decision-tree model, the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Theta(nlog n)$ time-complexity in the worst case as said in this Wikipedia article. So there is no algorithm to count distinct elements in linear time in the worst case, even without counting the duplicities.
However, it is not clear whether it can be done in another computational model. It seems unlikely in any reasonable deterministic computational model.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a nice question.
In the comparison model or, what is more general, the algebraic decision-tree model, the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Theta(nlog n)$ time-complexity in the worst case as said in this Wikipedia article. So there is no algorithm to count distinct elements in linear time in the worst case, even without counting the duplicities.
However, it is not clear whether it can be done in another computational model. It seems unlikely in any reasonable deterministic computational model.
$endgroup$
This is a nice question.
In the comparison model or, what is more general, the algebraic decision-tree model, the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Theta(nlog n)$ time-complexity in the worst case as said in this Wikipedia article. So there is no algorithm to count distinct elements in linear time in the worst case, even without counting the duplicities.
However, it is not clear whether it can be done in another computational model. It seems unlikely in any reasonable deterministic computational model.
answered 1 hour ago
Apass.JackApass.Jack
14.5k1940
14.5k1940
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There exist randomized algorithms whose expected running time is $O(n)$; or where the probability that the running time takes longer than $cn$ is exponentially small in $c$.
In particular, randomly choose a 2-universal hash function, then use it to hash all of the elements of the array. This achieves the stated running times, if you choose the length of the output of the 2-universal hash appropriately.
As another example, you can build a randomized algorithm whose worst-case running time is $O(n)$ (it always runs in linear time, no matter what) and has a probability of error of at most $1/2^100$. (How? Run the above algorithm, and terminate it if it runs longer than $cn$ steps for some appropriately chosen $c$.) In practice, that's good enough, as the probability that your computer outputs the wrong answer due to a cosmic ray is already much higher than $1/2^100$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There exist randomized algorithms whose expected running time is $O(n)$; or where the probability that the running time takes longer than $cn$ is exponentially small in $c$.
In particular, randomly choose a 2-universal hash function, then use it to hash all of the elements of the array. This achieves the stated running times, if you choose the length of the output of the 2-universal hash appropriately.
As another example, you can build a randomized algorithm whose worst-case running time is $O(n)$ (it always runs in linear time, no matter what) and has a probability of error of at most $1/2^100$. (How? Run the above algorithm, and terminate it if it runs longer than $cn$ steps for some appropriately chosen $c$.) In practice, that's good enough, as the probability that your computer outputs the wrong answer due to a cosmic ray is already much higher than $1/2^100$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There exist randomized algorithms whose expected running time is $O(n)$; or where the probability that the running time takes longer than $cn$ is exponentially small in $c$.
In particular, randomly choose a 2-universal hash function, then use it to hash all of the elements of the array. This achieves the stated running times, if you choose the length of the output of the 2-universal hash appropriately.
As another example, you can build a randomized algorithm whose worst-case running time is $O(n)$ (it always runs in linear time, no matter what) and has a probability of error of at most $1/2^100$. (How? Run the above algorithm, and terminate it if it runs longer than $cn$ steps for some appropriately chosen $c$.) In practice, that's good enough, as the probability that your computer outputs the wrong answer due to a cosmic ray is already much higher than $1/2^100$.
$endgroup$
There exist randomized algorithms whose expected running time is $O(n)$; or where the probability that the running time takes longer than $cn$ is exponentially small in $c$.
In particular, randomly choose a 2-universal hash function, then use it to hash all of the elements of the array. This achieves the stated running times, if you choose the length of the output of the 2-universal hash appropriately.
As another example, you can build a randomized algorithm whose worst-case running time is $O(n)$ (it always runs in linear time, no matter what) and has a probability of error of at most $1/2^100$. (How? Run the above algorithm, and terminate it if it runs longer than $cn$ steps for some appropriately chosen $c$.) In practice, that's good enough, as the probability that your computer outputs the wrong answer due to a cosmic ray is already much higher than $1/2^100$.
answered 38 mins ago
D.W.♦D.W.
104k14131298
104k14131298
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f108465%2fhow-to-count-in-linear-time-worst-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
It cannot be done in comparison model since the problem of element distinctness has a lower bound of $Omega(nlog n)$ decision-tree complexity.
$endgroup$
– Apass.Jack
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Apass.Jack, oh right that's correct. A trivial reduction I did not consider. If you write it up as a quick blurb answer, I'll accept.
$endgroup$
– ryan
1 hour ago