I tried to understand the logic of it but could not :(
On Nov 11, 11:17 am, shady <sinv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no, for eg.
>
> array1 = { 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 23};
> array2 = { 1, 2, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12 };
>
> then for
> k = 2, answer = 1
>
> k = 3, answer = 2
>
> k = 4, answer = 2,
>
> k = 6, answer = 4.
>
> anyway to do it iteratively in logarithmic time
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:27 AM, sravanreddy001
> <sravanreddy...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is it (k)th smallest element (distict integers)
> > or the element at position k, when both are merged?
>
> > 11111111111111113333333345555555555555556666666666666677799999999999999999999
> > --> Is 3rd smallest element '1' or '4'
>
> > If four, I am not able to think of a log complexity. Can u post your
> > recursive solution only if u meant '4' in above case.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/algogeeks/-/Aq8q9OwfcaEJ.
>
> > 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.
