Skip to content

Conversation

@TiffanyChio
Copy link

No description provided.

Copy link

@CheezItMan CheezItMan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall nice work, you hit the learning goals here. Well done. Check my comments below especially with regard to time/space complexity. Let me know if you have questions.

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(n)
# Space complexity: O(n)
def factorial(n)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

raise NotImplementedError, "Method not implemented"
return s if s.length <= 1

return s[s.length-1] << reverse(s[1..-2]) << s[0]

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s[1..-1] creates a new array and copies all the individual elements over and so is O(n) by itself.

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(s.length) or O(n)
# Space complexity: O(s.length) or O(n)
def reverse(s)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍
This works, but because you create a new array with each recursive call this is O(n2) for both time/space complexity.

# Time complexity: ?
# Space complexity: ?
# Space complexity: O(1)
def reverse_inplace(s)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We'll go over this in class.

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(n)
# Space complexity: O(n)
def bunny(n)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(array.length) or O(n)
# Space complexity: O(1)
def search(array, value)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 This works, but you have similar time/space issues with the above methods due to creating new arrays.


return false if s[0] != s[-1]

is_palindrome(s[1..-2])

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
is_palindrome(s[1..-2])
return is_palindrome(s[1..-2])

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(s.length) or O(n)
# Space complexity: O(1)
def is_palindrome(s)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 This works, but you have similar time/space issues with the above methods due to creating new arrays.

Remember your minimum space complexity would be O(n), even without creating new arrays with each recursive call. You have to consider the system call stack.

Comment on lines +75 to +76
if n < 10 || m < 10
return 1

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Glad you caught this

# Space complexity: ?
# Time complexity: O(log(n)) or O(log(m)) whichever is shorter
# Space complexity: O(log(n)) or O(log(m)) whichever is shorter
def digit_match(n, m)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Correct where n is the size of the number, you could also say O(n) where n is the least number of digits in a number.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants