PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATIONAL SERIES IN OMPUTER SCIENCE R.G. Dromey How fo Solve it by Computer C.A.R. HOARE SERIES EDITORHOW TO SOLVE IT BY COMPUTER by R. G. DROMEY Department of Computing Science The University of Wollongong ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, NEW JERSEY LONDON NEW DELHI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO TORONTO = WELLINGTONLibrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data DROMEY,R.G. —1946- How to Solve it by Computer. Bibliography: p. Includes index 1, Mathematics—Data processing 2. Problem solving—Data processing 2. Electronic digital computers—Programming 1. Title, QA76.95.D76 519.4 81-19164 ISBN 0-13-433995.9 AACR2 ISBN 0-13-434001-9 (pbk.) British Library Cataloging in Publication Data DROMEY, R. G. How to Solve it by Computer. 1. Algorithms 1. Title S118 QA9.58 ISBN 0-13-433995.9 ISBN 0-13-434001-9 (pbk) © 1982 by PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATIONAL, INC., London © 1982 by PRENTICE-HALL INC., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN O-13-433995-9 ISBN O-13-434001-9 {PBKT PRENTICE-HALL INTERNATIONAL, INC., London PRENTICE-HALL OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD., Sydney PRENTICE-HALL CANADA, INC., Toronto PRENTICE-HALL OF INDIA PRIVATE LTD., New Delhi PRENTICE-HALL OF JAPAN, INC., Tokyo PRENTICE-HALL OF SOUTHEAST ASIA PTE.,.LTD., Singapore PRENTICE-HALL, INC., Englewood Cliff, New Jersey WHITEHALL BOOKS LIMITED, Wellington, New Zealand Printed in the United States of America 10987654321This book is dedicated to George PolyaWe learn most when We have to invent PiagetCONTENTS PREFACE xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS rod INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2. The Problem-solving Aspect 3 1.3. Top-down Design 7 1.4 Implementation of Algorithms 14 1.5 Program Verification 19 1.6 The Efficiency of Algorithms 29 1.7. The Analysis of Algorithms 33 Bibliography 39 FUNDAMENTAL ALGORITHMS 42 Introduction 42 Algorithm 2.1 Exchanging the Values of Two Variables 43 Algorithm 2.2 Counting 47 Algorithm 2.3 Summation of a Set of Numbers 51 Algorithm 2.4 Factorial Computation 56 Algorithm 2.5 Sine Function Computation 60 Algorithm 2.6 Generation of the Fibonacci Sequence 64 Algorithm 2.7 Reversing the Digits of an Integer 69 Algorithm 2.8 Base Conversion 74 Algorithm 2.9 Character to Number Conversion 80 Bibliography 84x 3 CONTENTS FACTORING METHODS 85 Intraduction 85 Algorithm 3.1 Finding the Square Root of a Number 86 Algorithm 3.2. The Smallest Divisor of an Integer 92 Algorithm 3.3 The Greatest Common Divisor of Two Integers 97 Algorithm 3.4 Generating Prime Numbers 105 Algorithm 3.5 Computing the Prime Factors of an Integer 116 Algorithm 3.6 Generation of Pseudo-random Numbers 120 Algorithm 3.7 Raising a Number to a Large Power 124 Algorithm 3.8 Computing the mth Fibonacci Number 132 Bibliography 138 ARRAY TECHNIQUES 139 Introduction 139 Algorithm 4.1 Array Order Reversal 140 Algorithm 4.2 Array Counting or Histogramming 144 Algorithm 4.3 Finding the Maximum Number in a Set 147 Algorithm 4.4 Removal of Duplicates from an Ordered Array 152 Algorithm 4.5. Partitioning an Array 156 Algorithm 4.6 Finding the kth Smallest Element 166 Algorithm 4.7 Longest Monotone Subsequence 174 Bibliography 180 MERGING, SORTING AND SEARCHING 181 Introduction 181 Algorithm 5.1 The Two-way Merge 182 Algorithm 5.2 Sorting by Selection 192 Algorithm 5.3. Sorting by Exchange 198 Algorithm 5.4 Sorting by Insertion 204 Algorithm 5.5 Sorting by Diminishing Increment 209 Algorithm 5.6 Sorting by Partitioning 216 Algorithm 5.7 Binary Search 227 Algorithm 5.8 Hash Searching 237 Bibliography 246 TEXT PROCESSING AND PATTERN SEARCHING 248 Introduction 248 Algorithm 6.1 Text Line Length Adjustment 249 Algorithm 6.2 Left and Right Justification of Text 256 Algorithm 6.3 Keyword Searching in Text 267 Algorithm 6.4 Text Line Editing 274 Algorithm 6.5 Linear Pattern Search 282 Algorithm 6.6 Sublinear Pattern Search 293 Bibliography 303CONTENTS xi DYNAMIC DATA STRUCTURE ALGORITHMS 304 Introduction 304 Algorithm 7.1. Stack Operations 306 Algorithm 7.2. Queue Addition and Deletion 314 Algorithm 7.3 Linked List Search 325 Algorithm 7.4 Linked List Insertion and Deletion 331 Algorithm 7.5 Binary Tree Search 342 Algorithm 7.6 Binary Tree Insertion and Deletion 349 Bibliography 366 RECURSIVE ALGORITHMS 367 Introduction 367 Algorithm 8.1 Binary Tree Traversal 373 Algorithm 8.2 Recursive Quicksort 383 Algorithm 8.3 Towers of Hanoi Problem 391 Algorithm 8.4 Sample Generation 404 Algorithm 8.5 Combination Generation 414 Algorithm 8.6 Permutation Generation 422 Bibliography 433 INDEX 435PREFACE The inspiration for this book has come from the classic work of Polya on general and mathematical problem-solving. As in mathematics, many beginners in computing science stumble not because they have difficulty with learning a programming language but rather because they are ill- prepared to handle the problem-solving aspects of the discipline. Unfortu- nately, the school system seems to concentrate on training people to answer questions and remember facts but not to really solve problems. In response to this situation, it was felt there was a definite need for a book written in the spirit of Polya’s work, but translated into the computing science context. Much of Polya’s work is relevant in the new context but, with computing problems, because of their general requirements for itera- tive or recursive solutions, another dimension is added to the problem- solving process. If we can develop problem-solving skills and couple them with top- down design principles, we are well on the way to becoming competent at algorithm design and program implementation. Emphasis in the book has been placed on presenting strategies that we might employ to “discover” efficient, well-structured computer algorithms. Throughout, a conscious effort has been made to convey something of the flavor of either a personal dialogue or an instructor-student dialogue that might take place in the solution of a problem. This style of presentation coupled with a carefully chosen set of examples, should make the book attractive to a wide range of readers. The student embarking on a first course in Pascal should find that the material provides a lot of useful guidance in separating the tasks of learning how to develop computer algorithms and of then implementing them in a programming language like Pascal. Too often, the end is confused with thexiv PREFACE means. A good way to work with the book for self-study is to read only as much as you need to get started on a problem. Then, when you have developed your own solution, compare it with the one given and consciously reflect on the strategies that were helpful or hindersome in tackling the problem. As Yohet has rightly pointed out “programming [computer problem-solving] is an art [and] as in all art forms, each individual must develop a style which seems natural and genuine.” Instructors should also find the style of presentation very useful as lecture material as it can be used to provide the cues for a balanced amount of instructor-class dialogue. The author has found students receptive and responsive to lectures presented in this style. The home-computer hobbyist wishing to develop his or her problem- solving and programming skills without any formal lectures should find the completeness of presentation of the various algorithms a very valuable supplement to any introductory Pascal text. It is hoped that even some of the more advanced algorithms have been rendered more accessible to beginners than is usually the case. The material presented, although elementary for the most part, con- tains some examples and topics which should be of sufficient interest and challenge to spark, in the beginning student, the enthusiasm for computing that we so often see in students who have begun to master their subject. Readers are urged not to accept passively the algorithm solutions given. Wherever it is possible and practical, the reader should strive for his or her own simpler or better algorithms. As always, the limitations of space have meant that some topics and examples of importance have either had to be omitted or limited in scope. To some degree the discussions and supplemen- tary problems that accompany each algorithm are intended to compensate for this. The problem sets have been carefully designed to test, reinforce, and extend the reader’s understanding of the strategies and concepts presented. Readers are therefore strongly urged to attempt a considerable proportion of these problems. Each chapter starts off with a discussion of relatively simple, graded examples, that are usually related in some fairly direct way. Towards the middle and end of each chapter, the examples are somewhat more involved. A good way to work with the book is to only consider the more fundamental algorithms in each chapter at a first reading. This should allow the necessary build-up of background needed to study in detail some of the more advanced algorithms at a later stage. The chapters are approximately ordered in increasing order of concep- tual difficulty as usually experienced by students. The first chapter intro- + J.M. Yohe, “An overview of programming practices”, Comp. Surv., 6, 221-46 (1974).PREFACE xv duces the core aspects of computer problem-solving and algorithm design. Ata first reading the last half of the chapter can be skimmed through. Where possible, the ideas are reinforced with examples. The problem-solving dis- cussion tries to come to grips with the sort of things we can do when we are stuck with a problem. The important topic of program verification is pre- sented in a way that should be relatively easy for the reader to grasp and apply at least to simple algorithms. Examples are used to convey something of the flavor of a probabilistic analysis of an algorithm. The second chapter concentrates on developing the skill for formulating. iterative solutions to problems—a skill we are likely to have had little experience with before an encounter with computers. Several problems are also considered which should allow us to come to a practical understanding of how computers represent and manipulate information. The problem of conversion from one representation to another is also addressed. The algorithms in this chapter are all treated as if we were faced with the task of discovering them for the first time. Since our aim is to foster skill in computer problem-solving, this method of presentation would seem to be appropriate from a pedagogical standpoint. Algorithms in the other chapters are also discussed in this style. In the third chapter, we consider a number of problems that have their origin in number theory. These algorithms require an extension of the iterative techniques developed in the first chapter. Because of their nature, most of these problems can be solved in a number of ways and can differ widely in their computational cost. Confronting the question of efficiency adds an extra dimension to the problem-solving process. We set out to “discover” these algorithms as if for the first time. Array-processing algorithms are considered in detail in Chapter 4. Facility with the use of arrays needs to be developed as soon as we have understood and are able to use iteration in the development of algorithms. Arrays, when coupled with iteration, provide us with a very powerful means of performing computations on collections of data that share some common attribute. Strategies for the efficient processing of array information raise some interesting problem-solving issues. The algorithms discussed are intended to address at least some of the more important of these issues. Once arrays and iteration have been covered, we have the necessary tools to consider merging, sorting and searching algorithms. These topics are discussed in Chapter 5. The need to organize and subsequently efficiently search large volumes of information is central in computing science. A number of the most well-known internal sorting and searching algorithms are considered. An attempt is made to provide the settings that would allow us to “discover” these algorithms. The sixth chapter on text and string processing represents a diversion from the earlier emphasis on “numeric” computing. The nature and organ-xvi PREFACE ization of character information raises some important new problem-solving issues. The demands for efficiency once again lead to the consideration of some interesting algorithms that are very different from those reviewed in earlier chapters. The algorithms in this chapter emphasize the need to develop the skill of recognizing the essentials of a problem without being confused or misled by extraneous detail. “Discovering” some of these algorithms provides an interesting test-bed for us to apply some of the problem-solving skills we should have absorbed after covering the first five chapters. Chapter 7 is devoted to the fundamental algorithms for maintaining and searching the primary dynamic data structures (i.e. stacks, queues, lists, and binary trees). The issues in this chapter arise mostly at the implementation level and with the use of pointers. In the final chapter, the topic of recursion is introduced. A recursive call is presented as an extension of the conventional subprocedure call. The simplest form of recursion, linear recursion, is only briefly treated because the view is taken that there are almost always simple iterative schemes that can be found for performing what amounts to linear recursion. Furthermore, linear recursion does little to either convey anything of the power of recur- sion or to really deepen our understanding of the mechanism. The same cannot usually be said for problems involving either binary recursion or the more general non-linear recursion. Algorithms that belong to both these classes are discussed in detail, with special emphasis being placed on recog- nizing their underlying similarities and deepening our understanding of recursion mechanisms. Asa concluding remark about the book, if the author were to hope that this work may achieve anything, it would be that it stimulated students and others to embark on a journey of discovering things for themselves! A SUGGESTION FOR INSTRUCTORS .any idea or problem or body of knowledge can be presented in a form simple enough so that any particular learner can understand it in a recognizable form.” —Bruner. In comparison with most other human intellectual activities, computing is in its infancy despite the progress we seem to have made in such a short time. Because the demand for computers and people with computing skills is so great in our rapidly changing world, we have not had time to sit back andA SUGGESTION FOR INSTRUCTORS _ xvii reflect on the best way to convey the “computing concept” on a wide scale. In time, computing will mature and evolve as a well-understood discipline with clear and well-defined methods for introducing the subject to begin- ners—but that is in the future. For the present, because we are not in this happy situation, it is most prudent to look to other mature disciplines for guidance on how we should introduce computing to beginners. Assuming we want to have the highest possible success rate in introducing computing to students (a situation which clearly at present does not prevail) and that we want to teach computing on the widest possible scale, then the most obvious discipline to turn to is that of learning to read and write. Educators have mastered the process of teaching people to read and write to the extent that these skills are able to be transmitted on a very wide scale, efficiently, and with a very high rate of success. Putting aside the various methods within the learning-to-read-and-write discipline we see that there are some fundamental principles acknowledged by all methods that are highly relevant to teaching computing. In teaching people to read and write a very substantial time (years in fact) is devoted to reading. Only after such preparation is it considered appropriate that they should attempt to write stories or essays, or books, etc. In fact, even before people attempt to learn to read they undergo several years of listening to language, speaking, and being “read to”. Clearly, in learning a language, the ultimate goal is to be able to verbalize and write fluently in that language. Similarly in computing the goal is to be able to program (or design and implement algorithms) effectively. In learning to read and write it has long been recognized that reading is easier and that it must precede writing by a considerable margin of time to allow the assimila- tion of enough models and constructs of text to make writing possible. In teaching computing we seem to have overlooked or neglected what corresponds to the reading stage in the process of learning to read and write. To put it strongly, asking people to design and write programs early on in their computing experience is like expecting that they be able to competently write essays before they have learned to read or even to write short sen- tences—it is expecting just too much of a lot of people. It also probably explains why many otherwise very able people just don’t get started in computing. What we are therefore proposing is that in teaching computing we should draw as much as we can from the learning-to-read-and-write analogy. This means that we must be able to provide the beginning student with his or her “reading experience” in computing before embarking on the more difficult computer problem-solving tasks which require considerably more creative effort, discipline, and technical skill. At this point it is important to recognize that the “reading experience” cannot be gained by sitting down with a book of programs and attempting toxviii PREFACE “read” them. The problem with this approach is that program instructions as. written on a piece of paper are a static representation of a computer algorithm. As such they do not very fluently convey anything of the dynamic aspect of computer algorithms and programs. It can be argued that it is important to have a clear and in-depth understanding of the dynamic character of programs before attempting algorithm design and program implementation. What is needed is a practical and economical method of giving students their “reading experience” in computing. To gain this experience the students need to “see” programs written in a high level language executing. Traditionally, all the student sees is the output printed on the terminal or line printer and prompts by the program when it requires input from the terminal. This level of “seeing” a program execute is unsatisfactory for beginners because it conveys very little about the program’s flow of control or about the effects of individual and groups of program statements. What we need is much more explicit demon- strations of what is happening in a program that causes it to produce the outputs that it does. A far more transparent way to do this is to place before the student on a terminal the text of the program being executed and then to trace the execution on the displayed program while at the same time dynam- ically updating on the screen the changes in program variables as they are made and related to steps in the displayed program. This dynamic method of studying algorithms can greatly assist the student in acquiring a level of understanding necessary to design and implement his or her own algorithms. The facilities and software tools needed to adequately demonstrate execution of a program in this way are relatively economical to provide. All that is needed is a terminal with cursor addressing facilities and a small set of software tools (several hundred lines of code) that can be inserted into the program being studied to make its execution “visible” on the screen. Only one procedure call per statement of the program being studied is needed to operate it in a visible mode (this software is available from the author). The display software is transparent to the user. The appropriate tools allow us to see a program execute in single-step mode while monitoring the changes in variables as they are dynamically displayed on the screen. The student can cause the program to execute the next statement at each stage by simply pressing a single key (e.g. the RETURN) on the terminal. As an example, the screen layout for “visible” execution of a selection sorting procedure in Pascal is as illustrated in Fig. 1. The next statement to be executed at each stage is tracked by having an arrow that can be moved from statement to statement on the procedure text displayed on the screen. A more complete description of the software is given elsewhere.’ + R. G. Dromey, Before Programming—On Teaching Introductory Computing, Technical Report No. 81/6, Dept. of Computing Science, University of Wollon- gong (1981).‘A SUGGESTION FOR INSTRUCTORS xix procedure selectionsori(a:nelements; n:integer); var i {index for sorted part}, j {index for unsorted part}, P {position of minimum}, min {minimum in unsorted part}: integer; begin for i 1 ton-1do ie leele | olf) 12) ati]; for j := i+1 ton do if af j] < min then Lis 2 |afa:| 4 1 |afp}:| 12 end array: 12 4 56 67 9 23 45 Uy condition: af j]< min : Fig. 1 Screen layout for visible program execution The cause-and-effect nature of what is displayed when executing prog- rams in this manner (automatic single-step mode) can accomplish a number of things. (1) Most importantly, it provides a good understanding of the dynamic nature of algorithms—an essential prerequisite if students are to later design and implement their own algorithms. (2) It gives a deep insight into the basic laws of composition of computer algorithms (sequence, selection, iteration, and modularity). (3) Itis auseful vehicle for helping students to learn various programming constructs. Actually observing constructs being used within different programming contexts and linking these constructs to changes in the values of variables and conditions gives the student the necessary concrete demonstrations that will enable him or her to master the use of these constructs. (4) Itconveysin a very vivid fashion the workings of a particular algorithm. For example, the selection sort algorithm when visibly executed con- veys the difficult concept of how we can have one loop executing within another loop. It also highlights the difference between subscripted variables and subscripts.xx PREFACE (5) It also provides an ideal tool for teaching students debugging tech- niques. That is, programs with logical bugs can be implemented and the student asked to diagnose the problem after studying the program in visible execution mode. Visible program execution has the added advantage of being ideally suited for use in the lecture room, classroom, or library. Most terminals have the capability of video output which can be connected to a video recorder. Using these facilities it is very easy and cheap to monitor and record the visible program execution of a variety of programs for later use on video monitors in the classroom or library. This gives us a teaching aid far superior to handwritten blackboard examples when lecturing about algorithms in the classroom. We have recorded and used a number of programs in this way. We can take the visible mode of program execution a step further by making it more active with respect to the student. At each step in the program’s execution we can ask the student to supply the appropriate value of the variable or condition etc. How this works can be best illustrated by referring back to the figure. The arrow is indicating that the 7" statement (ie. p := j) is the next one to be executed. What the software can do is move the cursor to the “p” box on the screen and indicate to the student that he must supply the appropriate value for p (in this case 2) before the program will continue. If the user enters the wrong value the word ERROR will flash in the p-box. This will be followed by a flashing of the INPUT sign to prompt the user to again try to enter the proper p value. If the user gets it wrong twice the software flashes VALUE in the p-box and then supplies the user with the correct value, switches from interactive to automatic single step mode, and moves to the next program statement to be executed. Using a visible program in interactive single-step mode can in a very direct way reinforce the student’s comprehension of how a program really works and what individual program statements accomplish. At the same time it can give the student very positive and direct feedback when he gets something wrong. What we are therefore advocating is that students be given considerable exposure to visible “‘program-reading” in both the modes described as a preparatory step to considering the problem-solving aspect of computer algorithm design. Exposure to visible program execution (VPE) should be accompanied by a study of the basic laws of composition of computer algorithms (sequence, selection, iteration and modularity) including how these laws of form relate to the way programs are executed. Concurrently, a study should also be made of the syntax of the programming language being read.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The inspiration for the approach taken in this book grew out of an admira- tion for George Polya’s classic works on problem-solving. During the summer and autumn of 1980, I had the pleasure of spending a number of afternoons chatting with Professor and Mrs. Polya. The influence of Polya’s work and that of the pioneers of the discipline of computing science, E. W. Dijkstra, R. W. Floyd, C. A. R. Hoare, D. E. Knuth, and N, Wirth, is freely acknowledged. There is also a strong influence of Jeff Rohl’s work in the last chapter on recursion. Isincerely appreciate the guidance and encouragement given to me by Professor Hoare, Henry Hirschberg, Ron Decent, and my reviewers. Iam also grateful to the University of Wollongong and Stanford Uni- versity for the use of their facilities. A number of people have generously given helpful comments and support during the preparation of the manuscript. I would particularly like to thank Tom Bailey, Miranda Baker, Harold Brown, Bruce Buchanan, Ann Cartwright, John Farmer, Tony Guttman, Joan Hutchinson, Leanne Koring, Donald Knuth, Rosalyn Maloney, Richard Miller, Ross Nealon, Jurg Nievergelt, Richard Patis, Ian Pirie, Juris Reinfelds, Tom Richards, Michael Shepanksi, Stanley Smerin and Natesa Sridharan and my students at Wol- longong. The understanding and encouragement throughout this whole project that I have received from my wife Aziza is deeply appreciated. Finally, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to Bronwyn James for her loyalty and untiring and able support in the preparation and typing of the manuscript.Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING 1.1 INTRODUCTION Computer problem-solving can be summed up in one word—it is demand- ing! It is an intricate process requiring much thought, careful planning, logical precision, persistence, and attention to detail. At the same time it can be a challenging, exciting, and satisfying experience with considerable room for personal creativity and expression. If computer problem-solving is approached in this spirit then the chances of success are greatly amplified. In the discussion which follows in this introductory chapter we will attempt to lay the foundations for our study of computer problem-solving. 1.1.1 Programs and algorithms The vehicle for the computer solution to a problem is a set of explicit and unambiguous instructions expressed in a programming language. This set of instructions is called a program. A program may also be thought of as an algorithm expressed in a programming language. An algorithm therefore corresponds to a solution to a problem that is independent of any program- ming language. To obtain the computer solution to a problem once we have the pro- gram we usually have to supply the program with input or data. The program then takes this input and manipulates it according to its instructions and eventually produces an output which represents the computer solution to the problem. The realization of the computer output is but the last step in a very long chain of events that have led up to the computer solution to the problem.2 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 Our goal in this work is to study in depth the process of algorithm design with particular emphasis on the problem-solving aspects of the task. There are many definitions of an algorithm. The following definition is appropriate in computing science. An algorithm consists of a set of explicit and unam- biguous finite steps which, when carried out for a given set of initial condi- tions, produce the corresponding output and terminate in a finite time. 1.1.2 Requirements for solving problems by computer From time to time in our everyday activities, we employ algorithms to solve problems. For example, to look up someone’s telephone number in a tele- phone directory we need to employ an algorithm. Tasks such as this are usually performed automatically without any thought to the complex under- lying mechanism needed to effectively conduct the search. It therefore comes as somewhat of a surprise to us when developing computer algorithms that the solution must be specified with such logical precision and in such detail. After studying even a small sample of computer problems it soon becomes obvious that the conscious depth of understanding needed to design effective computer algorithms is far greater than we are likely to encounter in almost any other problem-solving situation. Let us reflect for a moment on the telephone directory look-up prob- lem. A telephone directory quite often contains hundreds of thousands of names and telephone numbers yet we have little trouble finding the desired telephone number we are seeking. We might therefore ask why do we have so little difficulty with a problem of seemingly great size? The answer is simple. We quite naturally take advantage of the order in the directory to quickly eliminate large sections of the list and home in on the desired name and number. We would never contemplate looking up the telephone number of J. R. Nash by starting at page 1 and examining each name in turn until we finally come to Nash’s name and telephone number. Nor are we likely to contemplate looking up the name of the person whose number is 2987533. To conduct such a search, there is no way in which we can take advantage of the order in the directory and so we are faced with the prospect of doing a number-by-number search starting at page 1. If, on the other hand, we had a list of telephone numbers and names ordered by telephone number rather than name, the task would be straightforward. What these examples serve to emphasize is the important influence of the data organization on the perfor- mance of algorithms. Only when a data structure is symbiotically linked with an algorithm can we expect high performance. Before considering these and other aspects of algorithm design we need to address the topic of problem- solving in some detail.SEC. 1.2 THE PROBLEM-SOLVING ASPECT 3 1.2. THE PROBLEM-SOLVING ASPECT It is widely recognized that problem-solving is a creative process which largely defies systematization and mechanization. This may not sound very encouraging to the would-be problem-solver. To balance this, most people, during their schooling, acquire at least a modest set of problem-solving skills which they may or may not be aware of. Even if one is not naturally skilled at problem-solving there are a number of steps that can be taken to raise the level of one’s performance. It is not implied or intended that the suggestions in what follows are in any way a recipe for problem-solving. The plain fact of the matter is that there is no universal method. Different strategies appear to work for different people. Within this context, then, where can we begin to say anything useful about computer problem-solving? We must start from the premise that computer problem-solving is about understanding. 1.2.1 Problem definition phase Success in solving any problem is only possible after we have made the effort tocome to terms with or understand the problem at hand. We cannot hope to make useful progress in solving a problem until we fully understand what it is we are trying to solve. This preliminary investigation may be thought of as the problem definition phase. In other words, what we must do during this phase is work out what must be done rather than how to do it. That is, we must try to extract from the problem statement (which is often quite impre- cise and maybe even ambiguous) a set of precisely defined tasks. Inexperi- enced problem-solvers too often gallop ahead with how they are going to solve the problem only to find that they are either solving the wrong problem or they are solving just a very special case of what is actually required. In short, a lot of care should be taken in working out precisely what must be done. The development of algorithms for finding the square root (algorithm 3.1) and the greatest common divisor (algorithm 3.3) are good illustrations of how important it is to carefully define the problem. Then, from the definitions, we are led in a natural way to algorithm designs for these two problems. 1.2.2 Getting started on a problem There are many ways to solve most problems and also many solutions to most problems. This situation does not make the job of problem-solving easy. When confronted with many possible lines of attack it is usually4 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 difficult to recognize quickly which paths are likely to be fruitless and which paths may be productive. Perhaps the more common situation for people just starting to come to grips with the computer solution to problems is that they just do not have any idea where to start on the problem, even after the problem definition phase. When confronted with this situation, what can we do? A block often occurs at this point because people become concerned with details of the implemen- tation before they have completely understood or worked out an implementation-independent solution. The best advice here is not to be too concerned about detail. That can come later when the complexity of the problem as a whole has been brought under control. The old computer proverb‘ which says “the sooner you start coding your program the longer it is going to take” is usually painfully true. 1.2.3. The use of specific examples A useful strategy when we are stuck is to use some props or heuristics (i.e. rules of thumb) to try to get a start with the problem. An approach that often allows us to make a start on a problem is to pick a specific example of the general problem we wish to solve and try to work out the mechanism that will allow us to solve this particular problem (e.g. if you want to find the maximum in a set of numbers, choose a particular set of numbers and work out the mechanism for finding the maximum in this set—see for example algorithm 4.3). It is usually much easier to work out the details of a solution to a specific problem because the relationship between the mechanism and the particular problem is more clearly defined. Furthermore, a specific problem often forces us to focus on details that are not so apparent when the problem is considered abstractly. Geometrical or schematic diagrams rep- resenting certain aspects of the problem can be usefully employed in many instances (see, for example, algorithm 3.3). This approach of focusing on a particular problem can often give us the foothold we need for making a start on the solution to the general problem. The method should, however, not be abused. It is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the solution to a specific problem or a specific class of problems is also a solution to the general problem. Sometimes this happens but we should always be very wary of making such an assumption. Ideally, the specifications for our particular problem need to be examined very carefully to try to establish whether or not the proposed algorithm can meet those requirements. If the full specifications are difficult to formulate sometimes a well-chosen set of test cases can give us a degree of + H.F. Ledgard, Programming Proverbs, Hayden, Rochelle Park, N.J., 1975.sec.12 THE PROBLEM-SOLVING ASPECT 5 confidence in the generality of our solution. However, nothing less than a complete proof of correctness of our algorithm is entirely satisfactory. We will discuss this matter in more detail a little later. 1.2.4 Simila ies among problems We have already seen that one way to make a start on a problem is by considering a specific example. Another thing that we should always try to do is bring as much past experience as possible to bear on the current problem. In this respect it is important to see if there are any similarities between the current problem and other problems that we have solved or we have seen solved. Once we have had a little experience in computer problem-solving it is unlikely that a new problem will be completely divorced from other problems we have seen. A good habit therefore is to always make an effort to be aware of the similarities among problems. The more experience one has the more/tools and techniques one can bring to bear in tackling a given problem. The contribution of experience to our ability to solve problems is not always helpful. In fact, sometimes it blocks us from discovering a desirable or better solution to a problem. A classic case of experience blocking progress was Einstein’s discovery of relativity. For a considerable time before Einstein made his discovery the scientists of the day had the necessary facts that could have led them to relativity but it is almost certain that their experience blocked them from even contemplating such a proposal—Newton’s theory was correct and that was all there was to it! On this point it is therefore probably best to place only cautious reliance on past experience. In trying to get a better solution to a problem, sometimes too much study of the existing solution or a similar problem forces us down the same reasoning path (which may not be the best) and to the same dead end. In trying to get a better solution to a problem, it is usually wise, in the first instance at least, to try to independently solve the problem. We then give ourselves a better chance of not falling into the same traps as our predeces- sors. In the final analysis, every problem must be considered on its merits. A skill that it is important to try to develop in problem-solving is the ability to view a problem from a variety of angles. One must be able to metaphorically turn a problem upside down, inside out, sideways, back- wards, forwards and so on. Once one has developed this skill it should be possible to get started on any problem. 1.2.5 Working backwards from the solution There are still other things we can try when we do not know where to start on a problem. We can, for example, in some cases assume that we already have6 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 the solution to the problem and then try to work backwards to the starting conditions. Even a guess at the solution to the problem may be enough to give us a foothold to start on the problem. (See, for example, the square root problem—algorithm 3.1). Whatever attempts that we make to get started on a problem we should write down as we go along the various steps and explorations made. This can be important in allowing us to systematize our investigations and avoid duplication of effort. Another practice that helps us develop our problem-solving skills is, once we have solved a problem, to consciously reflect back on the way we went about discovering the solution. This can help us significantly. The most crucial thing of all in developing problem-solving skills is practice. Piaget summed this up very nicely with the statement that “we learn most when we have to invent.” 1.2.6 General problem-solving strategies There are a number of general and powerful computational strategies that are repeatedly used in various guises in computing science. Often it is possible to phrase a problem in terms of one of these strategies and achieve very considerable gains in computational efficiency. Probably the most widely known and most often used of these principles is the divide-and-conquer strategy. The basic idea with divide-and-conquer is to divide the original problem into two or more subproblems which can hopefully be solved more efficiently by the same technique. If it is possible to proceed with this splitting into smaller and smaller subproblems we will eventually reach the stage where the subproblems are small enough to be solved without further splitting. This way of breaking down the solution to a problem has found wide application in particular with sorting, selection, and searching algorithms. We will see later in Chapter 5 when we consider the binary search algorithm how applying this strategy to an ordered data set results in an algorithm that needs to make only log,” rather than n compari- sons to locate a given item in an ordered list n elements long. When this principle is used in sorting algorithms, the number of comparisons can be reduced from the order of n? steps to n log,n steps, a substantial gain particularly for large n. The same idea can be applied to file comparison and in many other instances to give substantial gains in computational efficiency. It is not absolutely necessary for divide-and-conquer to always exactly halve the problem size. The algorithm used in Chapter 4 to find the k'* smallest element repeatedly reduces the size of the problem. Although it does not divide the problem in half at each step it has very good average performance. It is also possible to apply the divide-and-conquer strategy essentially in reverse to some problems. The resulting binary doubling strategy can give the same sort of gains in computational efficiency. We will consider in Chapter 3 how this complementary technique can be used to advantage toSEC. 1.3 TOP-DOWN DESIGN 7 raise a number to a large power and to calculate the n'* Fibonacci number. With this doubling strategy we need to express the next term n to be computed in terms of the current term which is usually a function of n/2 in order to avoid the need to generate intermediate terms. Another general problem-solving strategy that we will briefly consider is that of dynamic programming. This method is used most often when we have to build up a solution to a problem via a sequence of intermediate steps. The monotone subsequence problem in Chapter 4 uses a variant of the dynamic programming method. This method relies on the idea that a good solution to a large problem can sometimes be built up from good or optimal solutions to smaller problems. This type of strategy is particularly relevant for many optimization problems that one frequently encounters in opera- tions research. The techniques of greedy search, backtracking and branch- and-bound evaluations are all variations on the basic dynamic programming idea. They all tend to guide a computation in such a way that the minimum amount of effort is expended on exploring solutions that have been estab- lished to be suboptimal. There are still other general computational strategies that we could consider but because they are usually associated with more advanced algorithms we will not proceed further in this direction. 1.3. TOP-DOWN DESIGN The primary goal in computer problem-solving is an algorithm which is capable of being implemented as a correct and efficient computer program. In our discussion leading up to the consideration of algorithm design we have been mostly concerned with the very broad aspects of problem-solving. We now need to consider those aspects of problem-solving and algorithm design which are closer to the algorithm implementation. Once we have defined the problem to be solved and we have at least a vague idea of how to solve it, we can begin to bring to bear powerful techniques for designing algorithms. The key to being able to successfully design algorithms lies in being able to manage the inherent complexity of most problems that require computer solution. People as problem-solvers are only able to focus on, and comprehend at one time, a very limited span of logic or instructions. A technique for algorithm design that tries to accom- modate this human limitation is known as top-down design or stepwise refinement. Top-down design is a strategy that we can apply to take the solution of a computer problem from a vague outline to a precisely defined algorithm and program implementation. Top-down design provides us with a way of hand- ling the inherent logical complexity and detail frequently encountered in8 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 computer algorithms. It allows us to build our solutions to a problem in a stepwise fashion. In this way, specific and complex details of the implemen- tation are encountered only at the stage when we have done sufficient groundwork on the overall structure and relationships among the various parts of the problem. 1.3.1 Breaking a problem into subproblems Before we can apply top-down design to a problem we must first do the problem-solving groundwork that gives us at least the broadest of outlines of a solution. Sometimes this might demand a lengthy and creative investiga- tion into the problem while at other times the problem description may in itself provide the necessary starting point for top-down design. The general outline may consist of a single statement or a set of statements. Top-down design suggests that we take the general statements that we have about the solution, one at a time, and break them down into a set of more precisely defined subtasks. These subtasks should more accurately describe how the final goal is to be reached. With each splitting of a task into subtasks it is essential that the way in which the subtasks need to interact with each other be precisely defined. Only in this way is it possible to preserve the overall structure of the solution to the problem. Preservation of the overall structure in the solution to a problem is important both for making the algorithm comprehensible and also for making it possible to prove the correctness of the solution. The process of repeatedly breaking a task down into subtasks and then each subtask into still smaller subtasks must continue until we eventually end up with subtasks that can be implemented as program state- ments. For most algorithms we only need to go down to two or three levels although obviously for large software projects this is not true. The larger and more complex the problem, the more it will need to be broken down to be made tractable. A schematic breakdown of a problem is shown in Fig. 1.1. The process of breaking down the solution to a problem into subtasks in the manner described results in an implementable set of subtasks that fit quite naturally into block-structured languages like Pascal and Algol. There can therefore be a smooth and natural interface between the stepwise- refined algorithm and the final program implementation—a highly desirable situation for keeping the implementation task as simple as possible. 1.3.2 Choice of a suitable data structure One of the most important decisions we have to make in formulating computer solutions to problems is the choice of appropriate data structures.SEC. 13 TOP-DOWN DESIGN 9 General outline Input conditions Output requirements Body of algorithm Subtask 1 Subtask 3 Subtask 2 Subtask la Subtask 2a Fig. 1.1 Schematic breakdown of a problem into subtasks as employed in top-down design. All programs operate on data and consequently the way the data is organ- ized can have a profound effect on every aspect of the final solution. In particular, an inappropriate choice of data structure often leads to clumsy, inefficient, and difficult implementations. On the other hand, an appropriate choice usually leads to a simple, transparent, and efficient implementation. There is no hard and fast rule that tells us at what stage in the develop- ment of an algorithm we need to make decisions about the associated data structures. With some problems the data structure may need to be consi- dered at the very outset of our problem-solving explorations before the top-down design, while in other problems it may be postponed until we are well advanced with the details of the implementation. In other cases still, it can be refined as the algorithm is developed. The key to effectively solving many problems really comes down to making appropriate choices about the associated data structures. Data struc- tures and algorithms are usually intimately linked to one another. A small change in data organization can have a significant influence on the algorithm required to solve the problem. It is not easy to formulate any generally applicable rules that say for this class of problem this choice of data structure10 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 is appropriate. Unfortunately with regard to data structures each problem must be considered on its merits. The sort of things we must however be aware of in setting up data structures are such questions as: (1) How can intermediate results be arranged to allow fast access to information that will reduce the amount of computation required at a later stage? (2) Can the data structure be easily searched? (3) Can the data structure be easily updated? (4) Does the data structure provide a way of recovering an earlier state in the computation? (5) Does the data structure involve the excessive use of storage? (6) Is it possible to impose some data structure on a problem that is not initially apparent? (7) Can the problem be formulated in terms of one of the common data structures (e.g. array, set, queue, stack, tree, graph, list)? These considerations are seemingly general but they give the flavor of the sort of things we need to be asking as we proceed with the development of an algorithm. 13.3 Construction of loops In moving from general statements about the implementation towards sub- tasks that can be realized as computations, almost invariably we are led toa series of iterative constructs, or loops, and structures that are conditionally executed. These structures, together with input/output statements, comput- able expressions, and assignments, make up the heart of program implemen- tations. At the time when a subtask has been refined to something that can be realized as an iterative construct, we can make the task of implementing the loop easier by being aware of the essential structure of all loops. To construct any loop we must take into account three things, the initial conditions that need to apply before the loop begins to execute, the invariant relation that must apply after each iteration of the loop, and the conditions under which the iterative process must terminate. In constructing loops people often have trouble in getting the initial conditions correct and in getting the loop to execute the right numberSEC.1.3 TOP-DOWN DESIGN 11 of times rather than one too few or one too many times. For most prob- lems there is a straightforward process that can be applied to avoid these errors. 13.4 Establishing initial conditions for loops To establish the initial conditions for a loop, a usually effective strategy is to set the loop variables to the values that they would have to assume in order to solve the smallest problem associated with the loop. Typically the number of iterations n that must be made by a loop are in the range 00 sta{i] The same two steps can be used to extend the solution from when n=1 to when n= 2 and so on. These two steps will in general extend the solution12 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 from the (i 1)"* case to the i* case (where i=1). They can therefore be used as the basis of our iterative construct for solving the problem for n>1. .) initialization conditions g } for loop and solution to * J summing problem when n=0 while i1 end The process we have gone through to construct the loop is very similar to that of mathematical induction. We will consider these ideas more closely when proof of correctness and invariant relations are discussed. The other consideration for constructing loops is concerned with the setting up of the termination conditions. 1.3.6 Termination of loops There are a number of ways in which loops can be terminated. In general the termination conditions are dictated by the nature of the problem. The simplest condition for terminating a loop occurs when it is known in advance how many iterations need to be made. In these circumstances we can use directly the termination facilities built into programming languages. For example in Pascal the for-loop can be used for such computations: for i:= 1 tondo be; end This loop terminates unconditionally after n iterations. A second way in which loops can terminate is when some conditional expression becomes false. An example is: while (x>0) and (x<10) do begin end With loops of this type it cannot be directly determined in advance how many iterations there will be before the loop will terminate. In fact there isSEC.13 TOP-DOWN DESIGN 13 no guarantee that loops of this type will terminate at all. In these circum- stances the responsibility for making sure that the loop will terminate rests with the algorithm designer. If the model for the computation is straightfor- ward it may be a simple matter to guarantee termination (e.g. in our example above if x is changed with each iteration in either a monotonically increasing or decreasing fashion, then eventually the conditional expression (x>0) and (x<10) will become false. There are loops of this kind where it is very difficult to prove that termination is guaranteed. Algorithm 3.1 (for comput- ing square roots) contains a loop that is typical for this type of termination. Yet another way in which termination of a loop can be set up is by forcing the condition under which the loop will continue to iterate to become false. This approach to termination can be very useful for simplifying the test that must be made with each iteration. An example best illustrates this method of loop termination. Suppose we wish to establish that an array of n elements is in strictly ascending order (i.e. a[1]a[middle] then lower := middle+1 else upper := middle n; end found := (x=allower}) For the search value x and the array a{1..] where x = 44 and n= 15 we may have: Initial a1) af15) configuration [10]12]20]23]27] 30] 31] 39] 42|44]45]49] 57 [63] 70 t t t lower middle upperSEC. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALGORITHMS 17 Then the associated execution table is given by Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Stepwise execution table for binary search. Iteration no. lower middle upper lower < upper almiddle] x > almiddle] Initially eis true — _ 1 9 Gb ow true 39 true 2 Oo 12 i true 49 false 3 9 10 10 true 44 false 4 10 9 10 false 42 true NOTE: The values of variables associated with each iteration apply after the iteration has been completed. If we get to the stage where our program is executing but producing incorrect results (e.g. it might be a sort routine that places most, but not all, elements in order) the best idea is to first use a debugging trace to print out strategic information. The next step is to follow the program through by hand in a stepwise fashion checking against the computer’s debugging out- put as we go. Whenever we embark on a debugging procedure of this kind we should be careful to ensure that we follow in a straight line along the path of execution. It is usually a wasted effort to assume that some things work and only start a systematic study of the algorithm halfway through the execution path. A good rule to follow when debugging is not to assume anything. 1.4.5 Program testing In attempting to test whether or not a program will handle all variations of the problem it was designed to solve we must make every effort to be sure that it will cope with the limiting and unusual cases. Some of the things we might check are whether the program solves the smallest possible problem, whether it handles the case when all data values are the same, and so on. Unusual cases like these are usually the ones that can cause a program to falter. Asan example, consider the testing we would need for the binary search algorithm (i.e. algorithm 5.7). Appropriate data sets and tests are given in Table 1.2. It is often not possible or necessary to write programs that handle all input conditions that may be supplied for a given problem. Wherever poss- ible programs should be accompanied by input and output assertions as described in the section on program verification. Although it is not always practical to implement programs that can handle all possible input condi- tions we should always strive to build into a program mechanisms that allow it to gracefully and informatively respond to the user when it receives input conditions it was not designed to handle.18 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP.1 Table 1.2 Appropriate data sets for testing binary search algorithm Test Search value(s) x Sample data @ (i) (iii) (iv) ) (vi) (vii) (ix) Will the algorithm handle the search of array of one element? Will it handle the case where all array values are equal? Will it handle the case where the element sought equals the first value in the array? Will it handle the case where the value sought equals the ast value in the array? Will it handle the case where the value sought is less than the first element in the array? Will it handle the case where the value sought is greater than the last value in the array? Will it handle the case where the value sought is at an even array location? Will it handle the case where the value sought is at an odd array location? Will it handle the case where the value sought is absent but within the range of array values? 0, 1,2 a{t}=1 a{t}=1 a{i}=1 afi}=1 afi}=1 a{i]=1 afi}=1 a@{i]=1 afi}=2 a{2]=1 a{2]=2 af2]=2 af2]=2 a(2]=2 a(2]=2 a[2]=2 af2]=4 n=1 a{n}=1 aln}=n anj=n a{n}=n anj=n afnj=n anj=n a{n]=2n The last statement should not, however, be taken to mean that we should only design algorithms to solve specific problems. This approach should be far from our goal. Almost without exception we should design algorithms to be very general so that they will handle a whole class of problems rather than just one specific case. The latter approach of writing programs for specific cases usually, in the long run, amounts to a lot of wasted effort and time. It is far better to do a thorough job in the first place and produce a program that will solve a wide range of problems. This brings us to a bad practice that beginning programmers (and some others) often adopt. The practice referred to is that of using fixed constants where variablesSEC.15 PROGRAM VERIFICATION 19 should be used. For example, we should not use statements of the form while i<100 do The 100 should always be replaced by a variable, i.e. while i 0). When there are no restrictions on the values of the input variables the input assertion is given the logical value true. The output assertion must specify symbolically the results that the program is expected to produce for input data that satisfies the input assertion (e.g. if a program is designed to calculate the quotient q and remainder r resulting from the division of x by y then the output assertion can be written as: (x= ry t+N(r=Q where the logical connective ‘‘>” is read as “implies”. P is termed the assumption and Q the conclusion. The associated truth table defining impli- cation is given in Table 1.3. Table 1.3 Truth table defining implication P Q P2Q true true true true false _—_false false true ‘true false false true In order to show that these implications or propositions are logically true, it is necessary to take into account the effects of executing the program for arbitrary inputs that satisfy the input assertion. A relatively straight- forward way to do this is to use the technique of symbolic execution. With symbolic execution, all input data values are replaced by symbolic values and all arithmetic operations on numbers translate into algebraic manipulation of symbolic expressions. As an example, consider the following program segment labelled with input and output assertions:22 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 A readin(x,y); {assert: true} x-Y3 x+y; yrx B {assert x = yOAy = x0} where x0 and y0 refer to the initial values of x and y respectively. Table 1.4 Normal and symbolic execution for exchange mechanism Step Normal execution Symbolic execution input values: x=3 y=1 input values: xisx-ypx=3-1=2 0 x= a-y > x=a-B yisxty > y=24+153 xis y-x > x=3-2=1 were Both normal execution and symbolic execution, shown in Table 1.4, indicate that the values of x and y are exchanged. Symbolic execution enables us to transform the verification procedure into proving that the input assertion with symbolic values substituted for all input variables implies the output assertion with final symbolic values substi- tuted for all variables. A proposition phrased in this way is referred to as a verification condition (VC) over the program segment from the input asser- tion to the output assertion. To proceed with the verification procedure it is usually necessary to set up a number of intermediate verification conditions between the input and output assertions. Taken to the limit this involves carrying out the verifica- tion procedure statement by statement. For practical purposes itis, however, usually sufficient to only consider verification conditions for blocks of a program as marked by straight-line segments, branching segments, and loop segments. We will adopt the convention that VC(A — B) refers to the verifica- tion condition over the program segment from A to B. We will now consider the verification of each of these basic segment types in turn. 1.5.4 Verification of straight-line program segments The best way to illustrate the verification procedure is by example. Our exchange mechanism mentioned above will serve as an example of a straight-line program segment.SEC.1.5 PROGRAM VERIFICATION 23 The verification condition for this program segment is: VC(A-B): true > {x= yOAy = x0} On substitution of the initial and final values of all variables, we get: VC(A-B): true > ((a—B)+B)—(a—B)) = BMa-B)+B)=a The conclusion part of the verification condition can be simplified to yield B=B and a=a which is clearly true and so the implication is true. 15.5 Verification of program segments with branches To handle program segments that contain branches it is necessary to set up and prove verification conditions for each branch separately. As an example, consider the following program segment that ensures that x is less than or equal to y. readin(x,y); A {assert P,: true} if x>y then begin x end B {assert Pp: ((x<=y)Ax=x0Ay =y0))V(x= yOAy = x0)} In general, the propositions that must be proved for the basic if construct are: P,AC,>P5 P,A~Cy>Pp5 where C, is the branch condition. The two verification conditions needed in this case are given below, where the initial values of x and y are respectively @ and B VC(A-(1)—B): true Na>B>((a is true and the second part of the conclusion (i.e. a = «AB = ) is true, the verification condition for the true path is true. The verification condition for the false path is: VC(A-(f)—B): true \~(a>B)>((a)> (af) and the conclusion (a = a = f) is true the verifica- tion condition for the false path is true. It follows that the labelled program segment (A—B) is true. Case statements can be treated similarly.24 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 1.5.6 Verification of program segments with loops There are problems with trying to verify loop segments directly by symbolic execution because the number of iterations required is usually arbitrary. To overcome this problem, a special kind of assertion called a loop invariant must be employed, A loop invariant should be a property (predicate) that captures the progressive computational role of the loop while at the same time remaining true before and after each loop traversal irrespective of how many times the loop is executed. Once the loop invariant is established, there are several steps that must be taken to verify the loop segment. To understand this loop verification procedure, we will use the following single-loop program structure as our model. A_ {input assertion P 4} straight-line program segment B- {loop invariant I} while /oop-condition do begin loop-free program segment end C {output assertion Pc} (a) The first step that must be taken is to show that the loop invariant is true initially, before the loop is entered. This can be done by setting up a verification condition VC(A— B) for the program segment from A to B. That is, the input assertion, together with any changes to variables caused by the segment A—B, must imply that the loop invariant is true. We can use symbolic execution to carry out this verification step. That is, we must show P4>/. (b) The second part of verifying a loop involves showing that the loop invariant is still true after the segment of program within the loop has been executed. To do this we can set up a verification condition VC(B-B). This involves showing that the loop invariant with initial values of variables set, together with the condition for loop execution C;, implies the truth of the loop invariant with final values of variables, ie. IpACg>I5 Symbolic execution can also be used to verify this step.SEC.1.5 PROGRAM VERIFICATION 25 (c) Asa final step in verifying a loop segment, it is necessary to show that the invariant, together with the negation of the loop-entry condition, implies the assertion that applies on exiting from the loop. The verifica- tion condition in this case for our basic loop structure will be VC(B— C). The corresponding proposition will be: Ig\~Cg>Pe A better understanding of the application of the loop verification technique can be gained by studying a specific example. Consider the follow- ing program segment which can be used to compute factorial. A {assert P,: n>=0} a fact 7 B_ {invariant I,: fact = i!\i Ip : y2031=0!N0Iy : B=a!Aax(a+1)8=(a+1)! is true. Also asyNaPc : B=alhaxyh ~(aB=y! Since ~(ay then ayoa and so because a=y it follows that 8 = a!>B = y! is true and so the verification condition VC(B-C) is true.26 COMPUTER PROBLEM-SOLVING CHAP. 1 Since the verification conditions for all three program segments are correct, the complete program segment is said to be partially correct. What the verification method we have described gives us is only a proof of partial correctness, with the implication that if the algorithm terminates the result produced will be correct. For programs that contain loops we are therefore left with the separate but necessary task of proving that the program terminates in order to establish total correctness. Before considering in detail a method for proof of termination, we will consider setting up the verification conditions for a program example that employs an array. 1.5.7. Verification of program segments that employ arrays The idea of symbolic execution developed in the preceding sections can be extended to some of the simpler examples that employ arrays although it now becomes necessary to account for the symbolic values of all array elements. As an example of verification of a program segment containing an array we will set up the verification conditions for a program that finds the position of the smallest element in the array. The program annotated with assertions may take the following form: A {assert P,: n>1} lL: pial B {invariant Ig: (1(1SB+158)A(1SySB+t1)A (S04, 35 «+45 p41) VC(B-C): (1SB<5)A(1€ >0 The condition e=0 becomes an invariant of the loop. In some instances, the invariant used for establishing partial cor- rectness is not sufficient for use in a proof of termination. This problem can be overcome by attaching additional conditions (derived from earlier assertions) to the invariant. The second proposition that must be proven is to show that the loop invariant Ig, together with the condition for loop execution, Cz, implies that the value €) of the expression before execution is strictly greater than its value € after loop execution, ie. for a loop B TC2(B-B): Ip\C5>(60>€)A(e=0) The final value of € can be obtained by symbolic execution of the statements in the loop. Once these two propositions have been shown to be true, we can immediately conclude that the repetition process is finite since ¢ can only be decreased a finite number of times while remaining positive as required by TC1(B). The considerations of termination for repeat... until loops follow a similar line of reasoning. A proof of termination for the quotient/remainder program given below will now be outlined. ri=x3q:= 0; B {invariant I: r=0Ax = y*q+r} while y

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  4/5 (6129)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  4/5 (627)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  4/5 (1148)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  4.5/5 (934)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  4/5 (8215)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  4/5 (631)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  4/5 (1253)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  4/5 (8365)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  4.5/5 (860)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  4/5 (877)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  4.5/5 (361)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  4/5 (954)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  4/5 (2923)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  4.5/5 (277)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  4.5/5 (484)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  4.5/5 (4972)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  4.5/5 (444)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  3.5/5 (2061)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  4/5 (4281)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  4/5 (100)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  3.5/5 (447)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  4/5 (1987)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  4.5/5 (278)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  3.5/5 (2283)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  4/5 (1068)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  4/5 (1993)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  3.5/5 (2641)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  4.5/5 (1936)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  4.5/5 (125)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  3.5/5 (692)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  4.5/5 (1912)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  4/5 (4074)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  4/5 (75)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  3.5/5 (830)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  3.5/5 (901)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  3.5/5 (143)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  4.5/5 (2544)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M L Stedman

  4.5/5 (790)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  4/5 (45)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  4/5 (105)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  3.5/5 (109)