In Amazon written test Isomorphic trees were defined as those in which a
series of flips can transform one tree to another.
*Muthuraj R
IV th Year , ISE
PESIT , Bangalore*
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:52 AM, bugaboo <bharath.sri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Navneet,
>
> What you are talking about are "quasi-isomorphic" trees where trees
> can be changed a bit (flip right/left sub-trees to be precise) to make
> them isomorphic. An "isomorphic" tree does not need any
> transformation, they are similar in structure by themselves.
>
> On Aug 28, 1:44 pm, Navneet <navneetn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @Dave,
> >
> > From the definition of isomorphic trees(not in ques given), what i
> > know of is that one can be transformed into another. The above three
> > are then isomorphic to each other.
> >
> > @Bugaboo, can you clarify what exactly do you mean by isomorphic
> > here?
> >
> > On Aug 28, 9:25 pm, Dave <dave_and_da...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > @Naveet: So we have a question of semantics. Do these three trees have
> > > the same structure:
> >
> > > a
> > > /
> > > b
> > > /
> > > c
> >
> > > and
> >
> > > a
> > > \
> > > b
> > > \
> > > c
> >
> > > and
> >
> > > a
> > > \
> > > b
> > > /
> > > c
> >
> > > I say "no," but perhaps you say "yes."
> >
> > > Dave
> >
> > > On Aug 28, 9:35 am, Navneet <navneetn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Dave, that is why i have an OR condition between. Each side of OR has
> > > > two calls with AND in between.
> >
> > > > Basically at any node, you will have to invoke with two combinations
> > > > ((left,left) AND (right,right) OR (left,right) AND (right,left))
> >
> > > > Let me know if you think that's not required.
> >
> > > > On Aug 28, 6:02 pm, Dave <dave_and_da...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > @Navneet: Don't we want both subtrees to be isomorphic?
> >
> > > > > Dave
> >
> > > > > On Aug 28, 6:40 am, Navneet <navneetn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Dave,
> >
> > > > > > I think the last condition should be
> >
> > > > > > return (AreIsomorphic(tree1->left, tree2->left) &&
> AreIsomorphic(tree1->right,tree2->right)) ||
> >
> > > > > > (AreIsomorphic(tree1->left, tree2->right) &&
> > > > > > AreIsomorphic(tree1->right,tree2->left))
> >
> > > > > > On Aug 28, 3:39 pm, Ankur Garg <ankurga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Daves solution looks cool to me...shud work :)
> >
> > > > > > > Nice one Dave :)
> >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Ankur
> >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ankur Garg <
> ankurga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > cant we just count the no of nodes in each level and compare
> them with the
> > > > > > > > second one..
> >
> > > > > > > > if the numbers are same trees can be said to be isomorphic
> >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Dave <
> dave_and_da...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >> @Bugaboo: Use recursion. Assuming
> >
> > > > > > > >> struct tree_node {
> > > > > > > >> tree_node *left;
> > > > > > > >> tree_node *right;
> > > > > > > >> int data;
> > > > > > > >> };
> >
> > > > > > > >> int AreIsomorphic(tree_node tree1, tree_node tree2)
> > > > > > > >> {
> > > > > > > >> if( tree1 == NULL && tree2 == NULL )
> > > > > > > >> return TRUE; // both trees are null
> > > > > > > >> if( tree1 == NULL || tree2 == NULL)
> > > > > > > >> return FALSE; // one tree is null, the other is not
> > > > > > > >> return AreIsomorphic(tree1->left,tree2->left) &&
> > > > > > > >> AreIsomorphic(tree1->right,tree2->right);
> > > > > > > >> }
> >
> > > > > > > >> Dave
> >
> > > > > > > >> On Aug 27, 12:05 pm, bugaboo <bharath.sri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > Considering the definition of binary tree isomorphism is
> the
> > > > > > > >> > following:
> > > > > > > >> > - 2 binary trees are isomorphic if they have the same
> structure but
> > > > > > > >> > differ just by values.
> >
> > > > > > > >> > What is the logic (or pseudo code) for checking if two
> binary trees
> > > > > > > >> > are isomorphic?
> >
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups
> > > > > > > >> "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> > > > > > > >> To post to this group, send email to
> algogeeks@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.-Hidequotedtext-
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@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 algogeeks@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.
