10797  Peaceful Sharing
Moderator: Board moderators

 Guru
 Posts: 647
 Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 10:12 pm
 Location: Hong Kong and New York City
 Contact:
10797  Peaceful Sharing
Is there a simpler way to solve this without calculating the median of the arrangements of the duals? It's O(n^2), but is that the solution the problemsetter was looking for (the implementation is long..)? Thanks for any hints.

 System administrator & Problemsetter
 Posts: 399
 Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 2:00 am
hmm
I don't know what length will u consider long
My faster solution is 140 Lines
My slower (three times) is 100 lines
Kisman's solution is 40 lines (With STL) which is also quite slow but runs within time limit.
My faster solution is 140 Lines
My slower (three times) is 100 lines
Kisman's solution is 40 lines (With STL) which is also quite slow but runs within time limit.

 System administrator & Problemsetter
 Posts: 399
 Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 2:00 am
Re: 10797  Peaceful Sharing
I also forgot to reply the actual question. Yes I used median of arrangement as my idea to solve this problem. Kisman's idea was similar I think.Larry wrote:Is there a simpler way to solve this without calculating the median of the arrangements of the duals? It's O(n^2), but is that the solution the problemsetter was looking for (the implementation is long..)? Thanks for any hints.

 Learning poster
 Posts: 63
 Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 2:00 am

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am
Well, my method didn't work (tried binary search over convex hull nodes). Though, there still might be another one which consider inner points as well. I was unable yet to find any n*log(n) ordering.
By the way, if the intentional complexity was O(N^2), so you wanted to prevent people from sending O(N^3), why did you set limit to 10'000, but not to 2000? 10'000 is not better than 2000 as O(N^3) blocker, but it is very confusing limit as O(N^2) allower.
By the way, if the intentional complexity was O(N^2), so you wanted to prevent people from sending O(N^3), why did you set limit to 10'000, but not to 2000? 10'000 is not better than 2000 as O(N^3) blocker, but it is very confusing limit as O(N^2) allower.
To be the best you must become the best!

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am
Also I won't be surprised if O(N^2) testing of the 1st set via 2nd set will differ from the opposite approach (testing 2nd set via 1st set) 5 or 6 times on time. E.g. TL will turn into AC once you make x=x. Fair square limit of 20003000 won't allow such weird thing to happen.
To be the best you must become the best!

 System administrator & Problemsetter
 Posts: 399
 Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 2:00 am
hmm
I don't think the judge solution is O(N^2).
I have two solutions one was O(N^2) and modifying it slightly I made a better solution. But I allowed both the better and the O(N^2) to pass. I did not want a very bad O(N^2) to pass that is why N=10000. And I don't understand what is your problem if N=10000 and not 2000.
I have two solutions one was O(N^2) and modifying it slightly I made a better solution. But I allowed both the better and the O(N^2) to pass. I did not want a very bad O(N^2) to pass that is why N=10000. And I don't understand what is your problem if N=10000 and not 2000.

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am
Shahriar,
The problem is that whenever I see N=10'000 or greater, I seek for N*log^k(N) solution. I think that problems are intended to demand some asymptotics, but not optimizing N^2 (or N^3) to make it AC. Because for any such "solution" there is always a test which makes its worst. And all those "optimizatiosn" just increase the contanst, and you get a fair TL. Limits are a way to set an upper limit for demanded asymptotic.
Perhaps I am just too old problem solver, and what before was 1'000 now is 10'000. Well, never mind.
THE QUESTION:
Is there a way to build nested convex hulls of set of points better than at O(N^2)? I.e. once the outer hull is built, delete all its nodes and do it again until no points left (innermost hull may contain 1 or 2 points). If such algoritmh exists, there is possibility of logarithm for this problem.
If you are the author, they why don't you know? Or you're not?I don't think the judge solution is O(N^2).
The problem is that whenever I see N=10'000 or greater, I seek for N*log^k(N) solution. I think that problems are intended to demand some asymptotics, but not optimizing N^2 (or N^3) to make it AC. Because for any such "solution" there is always a test which makes its worst. And all those "optimizatiosn" just increase the contanst, and you get a fair TL. Limits are a way to set an upper limit for demanded asymptotic.
Perhaps I am just too old problem solver, and what before was 1'000 now is 10'000. Well, never mind.
THE QUESTION:
Is there a way to build nested convex hulls of set of points better than at O(N^2)? I.e. once the outer hull is built, delete all its nodes and do it again until no points left (innermost hull may contain 1 or 2 points). If such algoritmh exists, there is possibility of logarithm for this problem.
To be the best you must become the best!

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am
Yes, here it is. Called "Onionpeeling". http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~orm/ontri.html
To be the best you must become the best!

 System administrator & Problemsetter
 Posts: 399
 Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 2:00 am
hmm
To be specific the judge solution is O(cN), where c is a constant of value around 100. "I don't think..." was another way to say "is not".
I never thought of convex hull while setting this problem so cannot comment on your issue.
I never thought of convex hull while setting this problem so cannot comment on your issue.

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am
No, onionpeeling won't work either. Well, it will give correct answer, but we'll have logarithm only for layer length, not on number of layers. So, if each layer has 3 nodes, we'll stay at O(n1*n2) = O(N^2).
What do you mean by C=100? CPU cycles, some fixed time or what? Or is this some sort of function which is 100 for N<=10'000? Would it remain 100 for N<=1'000'000?
What do you mean by C=100? CPU cycles, some fixed time or what? Or is this some sort of function which is 100 for N<=10'000? Would it remain 100 for N<=1'000'000?
To be the best you must become the best!

 System administrator & Problemsetter
 Posts: 399
 Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 2:00 am
hmm
I used bisection in this problem. C is the number of iteration required in bisection to find the answer in the worst case. When N=10000000 C will not change.

 Experienced poster
 Posts: 123
 Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am