what do u think about this ...its O(n) program..
#include
#include
# include "malloc.h"
# include
bool bRemoveDuplicates(int array[], int iSize){
if(iSize <1)
return false;
if(array == NULL)
return false;
if(iSize == 1)
return true;
int left_comp = 0;
int right_comp = 1;
if input is 12345
then the output should be 54321
--
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...@googlegrou
@Dave but i tried the code its not working
Its giving 1 for all the input
could u explain the code please
--
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 unsu
I presume that you mean reversing the order of the bits, so that the
low-order bit goes to the high-order position and vice-versa. Assuming
32 bit integers, this does the trick:
int r;
r = ( ( x && 0x ) >> 16 ) || ( ( x && 0x ) <<
16 );
r = ( ( r && 0xff00ff00 ) >> 8 )
nice explanation gene :)
On Sep 2, 8:35 am, Gene wrote:
> Okay. First, you can make the DP more efficient than the one I gave
> earlier. You don't need to scan the whole previous column when
> calculating costs of decrementing. Rather there are only two
> possibilities.
>
> I will add that rahu
@gene: nice solution..
but it's not working for a[]={20,22,13,11};
ur code will give soln : 24
but ans should be: 22 {11,11,11,11}
pls correct me if i m wrong
On Aug 28, 8:26 am, jagadish wrote:
> @Gene: Thanks alot! :-) your solution works like charm!
>
> On Aug 28, 7:09 am, Gene wrote:
>
>
int reverse(int x)
{
...
...
}
complete the above code such that it returns the reverse of 'x'
condition here is u should not use loops and global as well as static
variable..
try to give all the possible solutions for this ...
--
You received this message because you
But how the number(in decimal form) will be displayedif ques
demands so.
On Sep 2, 1:49 pm, saurabh singh wrote:
> Suppose the number of shifts be x.
> Also let the integer be represented by 16 bits on that machine.
> Now take int n= (int)(x/16 + 0.5), to take the upper cap on result :) .
> S
Trie-traverse search will be best..
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Manjunath Manohar
wrote:
> trie will be the best choice for this..
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Algorithm Geeks" group.
> To post to this group, send email to algoge...@goo
@ankit
Yup I got your point. I didn't see the algo given by dhritiman previously. I
think that is better than my solution , where it fits in all cases.
Cheers
Kartheek
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ankit Sinha wrote:
> @kartheek, thanks for ur input!! Certainly, ur soln is fine but only
> w
@kartheek, thanks for ur input!! Certainly, ur soln is fine but only
will cater when array is 1...n but what if it ranges for 0...n-1. The
algo given by dhritiman fits in all the scenario. but ofcourse for
given question ( 1 to 100) your mathematical approach is good. :)...
Cheers,
Ankit Sinha!!!
11 matches
Mail list logo
