1 / 7

Quicksort: Average case

Quicksort: Average case. Assume each of the sizes for S 1 are equally likely . 0  |S 1 |  N-1. Average case, continued. divide equation by N(N+1). ….  log e (N+1) – 3/2. Selection. Find the k th smallest element in an array S . quickselect(S, k ):

beards
Download Presentation

Quicksort: Average case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quicksort: Average case • Assume each of the sizes for S1 are equally likely. 0  |S1|  N-1. CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  2. Average case, continued divide equation by N(N+1) … loge (N+1) – 3/2 CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  3. Selection • Find the kth smallest element in an array S. • quickselect(S, k): • If |S| = 1, then k=1 and return the element. • Pick a pivot v S. • Partition S – {v} into S1 and S2. • If k |S1|, then the kth smallest element must be in S1. Return quickselect(S1, k). • If k = 1 + |S1|, return the pivot v. • If k > 1 + |S1|, then the kth smallest element is in S2. Return quickselect(S2, k - |S1| - 1). CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  4. Analysis of Quickselect average case: … = O(N) worst case: same as Quicksort,O(N2) CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  5. A Lower Bound • information-theoretic lower bound for comparison-based sorting. a < b < c a < c < b b < a < c b < c < a c < a < b c < b < a b < a a < b a vs. b b < a < c b < c < a c < b < a a < b < c a < c < b c < a < b b vs. c a vs. c a < c b < c c < a c < b a < b < c a < c < b b < a < c b < c < a c < a < b c < b < a b vs. c a vs. c b < c c < b a < c c < a a < b < c a < c < b b < a < c b < c < a CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  6. Claim: Let T be a binary tree of depth d. Then T has at most 2dleaves. • Proof: The proof is by induction on d. • Basis step:d = 0. T consists of just a root and hence one leaf. • Induction step: Suppose the claim is true for all d n. Let T have depth n+1. Then T is a root with a left and right subtree, each of which has depth at most n. By the induction hypothesis, each of these subtrees can have at most 2n leaves, for a total of 2n+1 leaves for T. CSE 373, Autumn 2001

  7. Corollary: A binary tree with L leaves has depth at least log L. • Theorem: Any comparison-based sorting algorithm on N items requires at least log (N!) comparisons in the worst case. Therefore, the running time of any such algorithm is (N log N). • Proof: A decision tree to sort N items must have N! leaves. From the corollary, the algorithm must use log (N!) comparisons. CSE 373, Autumn 2001

More Related