they aren't the most incongruous.
To quote the fastest resource I can lay my hands on: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominating_set
"Dominating sets are closely related to independent sets: a maximal
independent set in a graph is necessarily a minimal domin
you refer to. (On a lazy search) I couldn't find
anything useful.
--
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algog
"distance to farthest pendant vertex".
--
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 u
rization makes it a
suitable basis for modern cryptography."
--
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@
;
That's like saying you can't do binary search in O(lg n), you need
O(n) to "read the array"? Something wrong don't you think. ;-)
--
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
gt; it's maximum degree is the best possible?
> (2) What's the time complexity, is it bound tightly?
> (3) Is there any better way?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> >
>
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
On 4/25/07, Ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the type of following grammar:
> S -> aXY
> XY -> a
Context-sensitive grammar.
I'm not sure if context-sensitive grammars have been subclassed to
cover something like this in particular.
> X -> b
> Y
e link:
"Note that the pumping lemma does not give a sufficient condition for
a language to be regular. That is, the lemma holds for some
non-regular languages. If the lemma does not hold for a language L,
then L is not regular. If the lemma does hold for a language L, L
migh
=0^n-2,
y=0^2, z=the rest.
The basic flaw is that you've ignored the fact that the pumping lemma
is used as an adversarial dialogue, between, you, the person trying to
prove a language is not regular, and someone, who claims to have a
finite state machine that ac
100 - R + 2*r"
How do you justify this if the sections aren't contiguous?
I think the proof elaborated by _stone_ is correct and apt.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
y 100 white sections. The question doesn't state a
particular ordering only states that there are 100 white and red
sections each on the outer disk.
Please clarify.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
ment to get the top k elements, O(n).
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Languages refer to
www.cct.lsu.edu/personal/estrabd/papers/paper333final.pdf
PREs basically provide this additional "tool" of shuffling, which much
like non-determinism (in finite state machines) turns out to NOT
provide any additiona
nd why not give the complete
solution? Cos the fun is in _solving_ not reading the solution.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post
' by Jon
Bentley, where he had mentioned that the O(m^2 * n) bound was the best
any one had done back then.
I realize now that ``Programming Pearls'' are pretty outdated and was
wondering if any one is aware of anything that has better
lculated
dimension, perform a linear scan similar to the one dimensional
version of the problem along the other dimension.
The pairs enumerable will work out to O(m*m) and the sweep will be
O(n). (Made possible with the help of the precalcuation in the
previous step).
--
Rega
yield what I guess should be called _limiting_
probabilities. ;-)
> 2. It is true that there are a lot of points outside the triangle that you
> cannot choose but they all lie in a finite set of lines
Again, I think this is incorrect. Please refer to my argument in my
previous post.
of these sweep angles that are unsuitable to form
a quadriateral are 180 degrees (sum of internal angles of a triangle).
Obviously since we can sweep only 360 degrees, we arrive at 1/2.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message bec
lds infinitely many positions _outside_ the triangle.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegr
infinity.
As I've posted above this still doesn't mean that the probability of
getting a quadrilateral hull tends to 1.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"A
m not saying
that this expected area is tight, I just feel that expected area <<
(a^2)/7.
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algorithm Geeks" group.
To post to t
I came across this interesting probability question recently.
Consider an infinite two dimensional plane. 4 points are chosen at
random on this plane. What is the probability that the convex hull of
the 4 points will be a quadrilateral?
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
I'm sorry. My algo is terribly wrong!
On 2/3/07, Rajiv Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Combination(Array Elements, Array Answer)
> {
> if(Elements.size() == 0) print Answer, return;
> for(i in Elements)
>//Select the particu
er.push_back(Elements[0])
//Don't select the element -- equiv to 0 say
Combinations(Elements+1, Answer)
}
--
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Algor
ase feel free to fill in information about your organization if
you're not a college/school student.
Regards,
Rajiv Mathews
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm
Geeks" gr
On 11/20/06, subrahmanyam kambala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi...can any one have the art of programming by knuth solutions for volume 3
Don't Knuth books have solutions in them?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
I had written..
>>So, using a sort the complexity really is
>>O(2n log 2), Isn't it?
Oh yeah..
That's terribly bad logic!
@Gene
>>Use radix sort to make it O(N W) where W is the bit-width of the
>>characters in the string, hence O(N).
I don't really get how a radix pass
is going to help here eith
27 matches
Mail list logo
