i_am_not_special's blog

count increasing subsequence in O(n) -> OA Problem

By i_am_not_special, history, 20 months ago, In English

So the question is count the number of increasing subsequence such that the gcd of subsequence will be equal to 1.

1 <= size of array <= 1e5 1 <= a[i] <= 1e6

can anyone help me solve this problem.

  • Vote: I like it
  • +9
  • Vote: I do not like it

Comments Comments (20)
| Write comment?
»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

0(n) = 0 * n = 0, wtf??

→ Reply
»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Create a another array called primes which will have all the prime numbers in the given array in the same seqvence of the array and now create an another array called ream where ream[i] is how many numbers which are greater than primes[i] and right side of primes[i]. Now answer is sum of 2**k for each k in ream (pardon me if it's wrong).
For finding primes we can use Sieve of Eratosthenes.
For building ream array we can use merge sort (or) fenwick tree.

→ Reply
»
20 months ago, hide # |
← Rev. 5  
Vote: I like it +21 Vote: I do not like it

Let $$$\operatorname{count}_x$$$ be the number of integers which are divisible by $$$x$$$ in the array. Now let $$$\operatorname{dp}_x$$$ be the number of subsequences whose gcd is $$$x$$$. We can calculate $$$\operatorname{dp}_x$$$ from highest to lowest $$$x$$$-value. Initially we set $$$\operatorname{dp}_x = 2^{\operatorname{count}_x} - 1$$$. Then, we subtract all $$$\operatorname{dp}_y$$$ values where $$$y$$$ is a multiple of $$$x$$$.

Now you have the number of subsequences with a gcd of any $$$x$$$ in the $$$\operatorname{dp}$$$ array. You can use this same strategy to count the number of pairs with a gcd of $$$x$$$.

Edit: Sorry, this doesn't count increasing subsequences, I misread the problem. My fault.

Edit 2: Somebody replied to me, showing how you can extend this solution to work with increasing subsequences :)

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    Thanks for helping. Do you have the link of this problem.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

    But these doesn't mantain the increasing property

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2  
    Vote: I like it +35 Vote: I do not like it

    I think you can extend this to increasing subsequences.

    For each $$$x$$$, we consider a compressed array, containing only the elements in the array which are a multiple of $$$x$$$. Then $$$dp_x$$$ is just the number of increasing subsequences in that array.

    Every element will be considered only once for every divisor, lets assume the max amount of divisors for any number is $$$K$$$, the time complexity is $$$O(N * K * \log(N))$$$

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +17 Vote: I do not like it

      Yeah that's correct, great!

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

      can you please explain this for [7, 2, 5]

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

      Can you elaborate?

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
      ← Rev. 3  
      Vote: I like it +21 Vote: I do not like it

      We want to calculate the number of increasing subsequences that have gcd exactly $$$1$$$.

      Lets fix the gcd $$$x$$$, and calculate the number of increasing subsequences that have gcd exactly $$$x$$$ (lets call it $$$dp_x$$$). To do that we calculate the number of increasing subsequences such that all its elements are a multiple of $$$x$$$ (lets call it $$$f(x)$$$), and then subtract the $$$dp$$$ of all multiples of $$$x$$$. finally $$$dp_x = f(x) - dp_{2x} - dp_{3x} - dp_{4x}...$$$

      As I mentioned earlier, you can calculate $$$f(x)$$$ by considering only the elements that are a multiple of $$$x$$$ and counting the number of increasing subsequences with a segment tree.

      consider this example: [2, 3, 5, 6]

      $$$dp_6 = f(6) - dp_{2 * 6} - dp_{3 * 6}.. = f([6]) = 1$$$

      $$$dp_5 = f(5) - dp_{2 * 5} - dp_{3 * 5}.. = f([5]) = 1$$$

      $$$dp_3 = f(3) - dp_{2 * 3} - dp_{3 * 3}.. = f([3, 6]) - dp_{6} = 3 - 1 = 2$$$

      $$$dp_2 = f(2) - dp_{2 * 2} - dp_{3 * 2}.. = f([2, 6]) - dp_{6} = 3 - 1 = 2$$$

      finally our answer is, $$$dp_1 = f(1) - dp_{2 * 1} - dp_{3 * 1}.. = f([2, 3, 5, 6]) - dp_2 - dp_3 - dp_5 - dp_6 = (2 ^ 4 - 1) - 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 = 9$$$

      → Reply
»
20 months ago, hide # |
← Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

why is this being upvoted, op literally said OA problem (and literally noone asked if it is ongoing or not)

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Go for it make a another cheating or exposed blog.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

      oh calm down, I have once given an answer to one of these kinds of questions before, which later turned out to be from an ongoing OA. I was severely traumatized for that incident.

      anyways I believe the consensus should be "not giving an answer to a question unless the source of the task is clear and it is obvious that the questioner is not cheating".

      → Reply