I did. I'm just having fun with the sloppy problem statement. If you
don't ask for what you want you might get what you ask for rather than
what you had in mind. The solver might decide that the OP really meant
something different, and solve some other problem, which may or may
not be what was
The spec says that the list is infinite, so I don't think that is
possible in finite time.
Don
On Jan 2, 7:53 pm, Dave dave_and_da...@juno.com wrote:
@Don: HaHa. That's cute, but don't you really think the problem is to
return any node in the list with equal probability?
Dave
On
@Don: You did, of course, see the OP's revision in
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/algogeeks/Be3WBebCDCk/_Mb0HUQ93WoJ, did you
not?
Dave
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:08:40 PM UTC-6, Don wrote:
The spec says that the list is infinite, so I don't think that is
possible in finite time.
Why not just return the first node? That is as random as any other
node.
Don
On Dec 27 2012, 5:01 am, naveen shukla
naveenshuklasweetdrea...@gmail.com wrote:
Given a linked list of infinite length. Write a function to return a random
node.
Constraints:
1 You can traverse a singly linked
@Don: HaHa. That's cute, but don't you really think the problem is to
return any node in the list with equal probability?
Dave
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 4:48:15 PM UTC-6, Don wrote:
Why not just return the first node? That is as random as any other
node.
Don
On Dec 27 2012, 5:01
You didn't say C or C++. It makes a difference. A void pointer is
just a pointer that can point to any kind of data. You convert it to
a specific type by using casts. So just implement an exogenous list
the same way you would if data had some type Foo. The replace all
the Foo pointers with
See you are actually passing the address of 'rest' each time, so the
changes made to *head_ref are actually reflected in the value at the
address of 'rest' each time the recursive call returns, so the value
of 'rest' is carried backwards to the front once we start popping from
the tail of the
@ Digo ..i got almost wat u said...can u give me a example with 3-4
nodes...it will help me a lot..thnx..
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Digo dipitgro...@gmail.com wrote:
See you are actually passing the address of 'rest' each time, so the
changes made to *head_ref are actually reflected in
got it...thnx a lot buddy,,,
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:20 AM, rahul sharma rahul23111...@gmail.comwrote:
@ Digo ..i got almost wat u said...can u give me a example with 3-4
nodes...it will help me a lot..thnx..
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Digo dipitgro...@gmail.com wrote:
See you are
now try how u will remove the loop from linked list
Shashank
CSE BIT Mesra
--
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
@anika: according to satistics we need both n/2 and n/2+1 to find the
median from an even set
((n/2)+(n/2+1))/2.
but here you cannot do this. so i guess n/2+1 or n/2 both are correct
because both contribute equally to calculate median.
On 7/12/11, bittu shashank7andr...@gmail.com wrote:
now try
I am not using extra space as i am not allocating new memory for storing
Nodes
i m using just 2 pointers on the same list, i think that will be allowed
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Nishant mittal.nishan...@gmail.com wrote:
@sunny plz tell me the solution without using extra list...i've
@sunny oh... i cudnt understand.can u plz explain by an example
On Jun 29, 7:58 pm, sunny agrawal sunny816.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not using extra space as i am not allocating new memory for storing
Nodes
i m using just 2 pointers on the same list, i think that will be allowed
On
@DON:
pls can U explain with examle ?
--
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
I hope you are not talking about converting a tree into a linked list
http://www.rawkam.com/?p=1139
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Raj N rajn...@gmail.com wrote:
I came across this example that the leaves of the tree can be the nodes of
a linked list and the inner nodes of the tree can be
@Yan Wang: Thanks a lot !!
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Yan Wang wangyanadam1...@gmail.comwrote:
I know what you mean now.
It's not very hard to implement your idea.
First, construct a usual binary sorting tree based on the original
linked list. Notice that I also use the inner nodes
@TurksHead: No its linked list to tree
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 6:59 AM, TurksHead Education
turksheadeducat...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you are not talking about converting a tree into a linked list
http://www.rawkam.com/?p=1139
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Raj N rajn...@gmail.com
I came across this example that the leaves of the tree can be the nodes of a
linked list and the inner nodes of the tree can be the number of left
subtrees. This kinda data structure can be used to find the kth element of a
linked list very easily. I was not able to implement such an idea.. Can
What do you exactly mean? You want to represent a linear structure by
using a tree structure?
You can imagine a linked list as a tree with all its root and inner
nodes only having one descendent/child node.
On Aug 23, 10:50 am, Raj N rajn...@gmail.com wrote:
What will be the representation. How
you are right in the way in cpp code it is not required but in C , you
can not write like node * start. it only recognise new type when
typedef is applied. second one is already explained by vijay
On Aug 18, 6:16 pm, Vijay kvija...@gmail.com wrote:
1. typedef is used to rename the data type.
1. typedef is used to rename the data type. Here struct node is actual
data type of linked list node and is renamed to NODE using
typedef .Instead of using struct node each time we declares a new
node variable we can use simply NODE.
2.**start is required if you pass actual parameter as
For the first question
*Q: Check whether given singly linked list is palindrome or not in
single pass.
Instead of making two passes, can we do it in single pass on a list?
One method i can think of is, hashing character to its postion and
check for the sum.*
I can think of a recursive
for 1st
use hare and tortoise algo to find the mid point of the linklist ...
and reverse the other end
like
a-b--c-d-v-u
a-b--c-d-v-u
pointer 1 will point to a and other pointer will point to u
then it is done ..
u can check..
2nd
for(p = original; p != null; p = p-next-next)
@barath
u r using extra space..
wat is new about this sol
change to array..
then do as simple
using a[i]==a[n-i] ???
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Bharath bharath1...@gmail.com wrote:
Q: Check whether given singly linked list is palindrome or not in
single pass.
Instead of making two
yeah a[i] == a[n-i] will work if you know the length of the list in advance.
What if we dont know the length in advance. One has to to make two passes on
a list ,first to find the length or midpoint and another pass for
comparison.
Can we do it in a single pass?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:01
Are we able to store the incoming characters?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Bharath bharath1...@gmail.com wrote:
Slightly modifying first question.
Check whether a string is palindrome in single pass.
Meaning an online algorithm is required, i.e. it must be able to read
one character at a
@bharath
how will u recognize
which a to compare to which a
or apply on malayalam
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Algorithm Geeks group.
To post to this group, send email to
well the 2nd ques is not clear.
can u explain it in simpler manner
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Aravind Narayanan a.cyber...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:38, varun bhatia varunbhatia@gmail.comwrote:
1. Given a single link list with one info
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:38, varun bhatia varunbhatia@gmail.comwrote:
1. Given a single link list with one info part containing single character
and a link. Check whether the link list is a palindrome or not.
The algo should run in Linear time only. You can't use any array or string
to
On Jun 22, 3:01 pm, Tejas Kokje [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:25 am, zee 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is this the best one even if the list is sorted ( or any other constraint
like this is applied ) ??
On 6/11/08, Mohammad Moghimi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I think O(n)
On Jun 11, 12:25 am, zee 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is this the best one even if the list is sorted ( or any other constraint
like this is applied ) ??
On 6/11/08, Mohammad Moghimi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I think O(n) is the best method one can use
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03
This is not funny!
Skiplist is essentially an optimized version of Doug's idea that ends up
using a logrithmically scaling vector of pointers. Secondly, linked lists in
real scenarios make sense only when there is some satellite data associated
with the keys. So maintaining just pointers gives
Well it is possible with a constraint that ur linked list is
maintained sorted. Google more on Skiplist.
It is a randomized probabilistic algorithm.
Regards,
Sumedh
On 6/11/08, Douglas Diniz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you have a classic linked list, O(n) is the best for you. But you
No, I think O(n) is the best method one can use
-- Mohammad Moghimi
double m[] = { 9580842103863.650391, 133470973390.236450, 270};
int main(){m[2]--?m[0]*=4,m[1]*=5,main():printf(m);}
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM, zee99. 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there any algo that can search a
You cannot randomly access elements in the list.. So i guess the list
being sorted isn't going to make a difference.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM, zee 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is this the best one even if the list is sorted ( or any other constraint
like this is applied ) ??
On
On Jun 11, 3:25 am, zee 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/11/08, Mohammad Moghimi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM, zee99. 99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there any algo that can search a linked list in less than O(n) time
No, I think O(n) is the best method one can
Well, if you have a classic linked list, O(n) is the best for you. But you
can do better if you have a sorted linked list. In every node keep a vector
of pointers for all other nodes. Then you can simulate a binary search.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Geoffrey Summerhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 11, 12:09 pm, Douglas Diniz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you have a classic linked list, O(n) is the best for you. But you
can do better if you have a sorted linked list. In every node keep a vector
of pointers for all other nodes. Then you can simulate a binary search.
LOL ...
If you have a vector, then why would you use linked list in the first place?? :)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Geoffrey Summerhayes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:09 pm, Douglas Diniz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you have a classic linked list, O(n) is the best for you. But
39 matches
Mail list logo
