http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks/browse_thread/thread/f56bac6...
The best solution given there is O(n) with only constant additional
storage.
On Aug 15, 1:51 pm, Debajyoti Sarma <sarma.debajy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so what was the optimal solution found in the previous discussion?? give a
> link
> I don't remember the name of the thread...so only i posted this.
>
> On 8/15/10, Gene <gene.ress...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In fact this solution was suggested (without code) in the original
> > discussion.
>
> > It's O(n^2).
>
> > You're only re-ordering a constant number (4) of elements in each
> > recursive pass, and each pass requires O(n) time to execute. You also
> > need to assume your compiler will remove the tail recursion.
> > Otherwise it will also require O(n) space, which misses the whole
> > point of the problem.
>
> > On Aug 15, 12:29 pm, Debajyoti Sarma <sarma.debajy...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Array of 2n length is given {a1,a2,a3,...,an,b1,b2,b3,...,bn}
> >> we have to make the array like as {a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3,...,an,bn}
> >> without using extra buffer space.
> >> here a solution i came up withhttp://codepad.org/ub5Ie4sI
> >> I know this was discussed before .
> >> But i want to know the time complexity of the code i have given(i m
> >> confused)
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to algoge...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algoge...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
algogeeks+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks?hl=en.
