@my previous post..

While explaining the run-time I have made an editing mistake...
instead of 'N' nodes it should be 'K' nodes..
i.e.
Hence, for any given bin- tree having 'K' nodes, the number of null
nodes is 'K+1'.
These null nodes are nothing but the nodes where the check nodeValue <
X failed while traversing the original tree.
Hence, the total number of checks will be 2K+1 = O(2K)

On Dec 16, 1:04 am, sunny agrawal <sunny816.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> oops...
> wanted to write the same but yeah its meaning turns out to be totally
> different :(
> anyways very well explained by Lucifier
>
> @shashank
> i think now u will be able to get why there will be only 2k comparisons in
> the worst case
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:51 PM, atul anand <atul.87fri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > @Lucifer : yes even i found flaw in the above algo when i gave it a second
> > thought but didnt get time to post it.
> > bcoz min heap has property that the parent node is less than its both
> > child(subtree to be more precise ) but it does not confirm  that left child
> > is always smaller than right child of the node.
>
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Lucifer <sourabhd2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> @All
>
> >> I don't think the algo given above is entirely correct.. Or may be i
> >> didn't it properly...
>
> >> So basically say a preorder traversal of the heap is done based on
> >> whether the current root value < X. As the algo says that at any point
> >> if k>0 and we hit a node value which is >=X , then we are done. If i
> >> understood it properly then thats not correct.
>
> >> The reason being that say on the left subtree we end up at a node
> >> whose value is >=x and say k > 0. Now until and unless we don't parse
> >> the right subtree (or basically the right half which was neglected as
> >> part of pre-order traversal or say was to be considered later) we are
> >> not sure if the current node is actually withing the first smallest K
> >> nos. It may happen that previously neglected (or rather later to be
> >> processed) half has the kth smallest element which is actually < X.
> >> The reason being that a heap is not a binary search tree where there
> >> is a strict relation between the left and the right half so that we
> >> can say that if say a condition P is true in the left half then it
> >> will be false in the right half and vice versa.
>
> >> To solve the problem we need to do a pre-order  traversal keeping the
> >> following conditions in mind: (pass K and root node)
>
> >> 1) If current node is >= X then skip the processing of the tree rooted
> >> at the current node.
>
> >> 2) If current node is < X , then decrement K by 1 and process its
> >> childs ( i.e take step 1 for rach child).
>
> >> The result will depend on:
>
> >> a) If at any stage recursion ends and the value of K>0 then the kth
> >> smallest element is >= X.
> >>  b) If during tree traversal the value of K reaches 0, that means
> >> there are atleast k elements which are < X. Hence, at this point
> >> terminate the recursion ( as in no need to continue). This result
> >> signifies that the kth smallest element < X.
>
> >> Therefore to generalize...
>
> >> Perform a preorder traversal for root node < X, and keep decrementing
> >> the count K by 1.
> >> If K reaches 0 during traversal then end the recursion.
>
> >> After the call to the recursive traversal is over, check for the value
> >> of K. If greater than 0, then the kth smallest element >= X otherwise
> >> its not.
>
> >> The time complexity will always be 2K ( in the worst case basically
> >> when K value reaches 0 ). If u analyze it closely we are making 2
> >> checks when at particular node for its children. Hence, whether both
> >> the child nodes have value < X or one of them or node, at the end we
> >> always end up making 2 checks for the children (left and right child).
> >> So given any tree one can think of a null node as a leaf node
> >> ( depicting that the node has a value >=X) . Hence, for any given bin-
> >> tree having nodes 'N', the number null nodes is 'N+1'. Hence, the
> >> total number of checks will be 2N+1 = O(2N) ,
>
> >> On Dec 15, 1:00 pm, WgpShashank <shashank7andr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > @sunny why we look at all k number which are greater then x , correct ?
> >> > Lets think in this way
>
> >> > we wants to check if kth smallest element in heap thats >=x  isn't it ?
> >> so
> >> > if root of mean heap is greater then x then none other elements will
> >> less
> >> > then x so we terminate .
> >> > else our algorithm  will search children of all the nodes which are less
> >> > then x  till either we have found k of them or we are exhausted e.g.
> >> when
> >> > k=0 . so we will cal our function to both left & right children ?
>
> >> > so now think we are looking for children's of only nodes which are less
> >> > then x and at most k of these in tottal . each have atmost two visited
> >> > childrens so we have visted at-most 3K nodes isn;t it ? for total time
> >> O(K)
> >> > ?
>
> >> > let me know where i am wrong ? i am not getting for uy k nodes greater
> >> then
> >> > x ? why we will do that & then how much comparisons u needs for that ?
>
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Shashank Mani
> >> > CSE, BIT Mesrahttp://shashank7s.blogspot.com/
>
> >> --
> >> 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.
>
> --
> Sunny Aggrawal
> B.Tech. V year,CSI
> Indian Institute Of Technology,Roorkee

-- 
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.

Reply via email to