Yes -- thank you -- I have admitted in an earlier post that I posted this variant in error. This variant has a very interesting solution, however -- it is worth a look.
On Aug 26, 10:57 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In your example, I noticed that all values are positive number and > none of them are not out of array bounds. Which means that was really > special case, not applicable for general cases. > > > Pos Val > > 1 4 > > 2 1 > > 3 1 > > 4 2 > > 5 9 > > 6 8 > > 7 5 > > 8 7 > > 9 6 > > 10 3 > > ------------- > > 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 > > 2 -> 1 -> 4 -> 2 > > 3 -> 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 > > 4 -> 2 -> 1 -> 4 > > 5 -> 9 -> 6 -> 8 -> 7 -> 5 > > 6 -> 8 -> 7 -> 5 -> 9 -> 6 > > 7 -> 5 -> 9 -> 6 -> 8 -> 7 > > 8 -> 7 -> 5 -> 9 -> 6 -> 8 > > 9 -> 6 -> 8 -> 7 -> 5 -> 9 > > 10 -> 3 -> 1 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 > > > On Aug 16, 1:41 pm, dsha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > I'm interested in the following problem: there is an array of integers > > > that contains each element only once except for one element that > > > occurs exactly twice. Is there a way to find this element faster than > > > O(n*log n) and with constant extra memory? If no, how can I prove it? > > > > Thanks in advance for ideas.- 따온 텍스트 숨기기 - > > > - 따온 텍스트 보기 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
