**Problem Detail:**

I'm (foolishly it turns out) confident that the answer to this question is no. So why am I asking?

Because Dr. Aleksandar Prokopec at EPFL in his parallel programming course introduces a data-structure for which he asserts various properties. If these properties hold then it seems *to me* that it must be possible to build a balanced binary tree in better than $O(n\log n)$ time.

I don't believe this so I'm wondering where the flaw is in my thinking.

The data-structure is the conc-tree list. In it's standard form it looks like a normal binary tree and comes with a `concat`

operation that ensures the invariant that the left and right subtrees of any node never differ in height by more than one. As expected `concat`

has complexity $O(\log n)$.

But there's a builder variant of the conc-tree list called the `Append`

list. This variant allows for temporary height differences in subtrees of more than one. Amortized $O(1)$ time appends are claimed for this variant.

So it seems appending $n$ elements must have a complexity of $O(n)$.

However it's a characteristic of this variant that whenever $n$ is a power of two one ends up with a complete balanced binary tree (containing all elements inserted so far). So while temporary imbalances are allowed the tree becomes balanced every power of 2 insertions.

In this variant a new class of nodes, called `Append`

nodes, are introduced and it's these nodes whose subtrees are allowed differ in height by more than one. However every $2^k$ insertions all such temporary nodes are eliminated.

The Wikipedia page page describes the algorithm fairly succinctly (see the description of the basic data-structure and the `append`

method in particular).

So when $n$ is a power of two our cost for inserting elements is $O(n)$ and we've built a balanced binary tree. Or so it seems.

In a separate question I effectively asked "if I can state the number of steps for an algorithms for certain values of $n$, e.g. for $n = 2^k$, where $k$ is a whole number, is this enough to allow me to state the complexity for all values of $n$?"

I can see from Yuval Filmus's answer that the answer is no, but that "in many cases we would expect $T$ to be monotone in $n$. In that case, the deduction does hold."

So it seems to me that in this case if inserting $n$ elements has complexity $O(n)$ and every $2^k$ elements I have a balanced binary tree then the cost of building balanced binary trees with this conc-tree variant approach must be $O(n)$.

So what's wrong here? To be honest I can't see the amortized $O(1)$ append time claimed for this variant. I can see that often insertions do have cost $O(1)$ but that when one looks at what's happening with the temporary `Append`

nodes the overall insertion cost looks to me to be amortized $O(\log n)$.

If this is the case then building our balanced binary tree has an unsurprising $O(n\log n)$ cost.

Sorry for such a long question and sorry for not going into detail about the algorithm in question - instead leaving you to look around on Wikipedia.

###### Asked By : George Hawkins

#### Answered By : aelguindy

If I understand your question correctly, then yes of course you can build a balanced binary tree in $O(n)$ time. Here is a simple pseudocode:

`L = [2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 6, 8] q = Queue() node root{value = L[0]} q.add(root) k = 1 while !q.isEmpty: n = q.pop if k < L.size: n.left = node{value=L[k]} k++ q.add(n.left) if k < L.size: n.right = node{value=L[k]} k++ q.add(n.right) `

It is not hard to see that this code does run in linear time and builds a balanced binary tree.

What you cannot do, is build a balanced binary **search (ordered)** tree in $O(n)$ time (using only comparisons on the values). The algorithm above does not guarantee that the value on the root is greater than or equal to every value in the left sub-tree and is less than or equal to every value in the right sub-tree, for every sub-tree.

The algorithm above does not guarantee it and neither does the conc-tree (using appends and prepends). From the wikipedia page, it only guarantees $O(1)$ amortized time for **appends** and **prepends**. For inserts, it can only guarantee $O(\log n)$ time.

###### Best Answer from StackOverflow

Question Source : http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/65593

## 0 comments:

## Post a Comment

Let us know your responses and feedback