Leet Code :: Merge Binary Tree :: Time Complexity [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
-3
down vote

favorite












Problem Statement: Given two binary trees and imagine that when you put one of them to cover the other, some nodes of the two trees are overlapped while the others are not.
You need to merge them into a new binary tree. The merge rule is that if two nodes overlap, then sum node values up as the new value of the merged node. Otherwise, the NOT null node will be used as the node of new tree.



My solution for the problem:



 /**
* Definition for a binary tree node.
* public class TreeNode
* int val;
* TreeNode left;
* TreeNode right;
* TreeNode(int x) val = x;
*
*/
class Solution
public TreeNode mergeTrees(TreeNode t1, TreeNode t2)
// in case if either is null, directly return one of the nodes depending on the availablity.
if(t1==null) return t2;
if(t2==null) return t1;
TreeNode left=mergeTrees(t1.left,t2.left);
TreeNode right=mergeTrees(t1.right,t2.right);
t1.val=t1.val+t2.val;
t1.left=left;
t1.right=right;
t2=null;
return t1;




I have calculated the worst-case time-complexity of the above code as O(Min.(Size of t1,Size of t2)) but I am not sure about it? Please share your analysis of it.







share|improve this question











closed as off-topic by Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed Jan 8 at 8:47


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete implementation. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic." – Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • @Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:14










  • @pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
    – Antot
    Jan 6 at 15:24










  • I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:32










  • @pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
    – Mast
    Jan 6 at 15:52










  • @Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
    – Abhiroj Panwar
    Jan 6 at 16:42
















up vote
-3
down vote

favorite












Problem Statement: Given two binary trees and imagine that when you put one of them to cover the other, some nodes of the two trees are overlapped while the others are not.
You need to merge them into a new binary tree. The merge rule is that if two nodes overlap, then sum node values up as the new value of the merged node. Otherwise, the NOT null node will be used as the node of new tree.



My solution for the problem:



 /**
* Definition for a binary tree node.
* public class TreeNode
* int val;
* TreeNode left;
* TreeNode right;
* TreeNode(int x) val = x;
*
*/
class Solution
public TreeNode mergeTrees(TreeNode t1, TreeNode t2)
// in case if either is null, directly return one of the nodes depending on the availablity.
if(t1==null) return t2;
if(t2==null) return t1;
TreeNode left=mergeTrees(t1.left,t2.left);
TreeNode right=mergeTrees(t1.right,t2.right);
t1.val=t1.val+t2.val;
t1.left=left;
t1.right=right;
t2=null;
return t1;




I have calculated the worst-case time-complexity of the above code as O(Min.(Size of t1,Size of t2)) but I am not sure about it? Please share your analysis of it.







share|improve this question











closed as off-topic by Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed Jan 8 at 8:47


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete implementation. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic." – Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • @Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:14










  • @pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
    – Antot
    Jan 6 at 15:24










  • I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:32










  • @pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
    – Mast
    Jan 6 at 15:52










  • @Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
    – Abhiroj Panwar
    Jan 6 at 16:42












up vote
-3
down vote

favorite









up vote
-3
down vote

favorite











Problem Statement: Given two binary trees and imagine that when you put one of them to cover the other, some nodes of the two trees are overlapped while the others are not.
You need to merge them into a new binary tree. The merge rule is that if two nodes overlap, then sum node values up as the new value of the merged node. Otherwise, the NOT null node will be used as the node of new tree.



My solution for the problem:



 /**
* Definition for a binary tree node.
* public class TreeNode
* int val;
* TreeNode left;
* TreeNode right;
* TreeNode(int x) val = x;
*
*/
class Solution
public TreeNode mergeTrees(TreeNode t1, TreeNode t2)
// in case if either is null, directly return one of the nodes depending on the availablity.
if(t1==null) return t2;
if(t2==null) return t1;
TreeNode left=mergeTrees(t1.left,t2.left);
TreeNode right=mergeTrees(t1.right,t2.right);
t1.val=t1.val+t2.val;
t1.left=left;
t1.right=right;
t2=null;
return t1;




I have calculated the worst-case time-complexity of the above code as O(Min.(Size of t1,Size of t2)) but I am not sure about it? Please share your analysis of it.







share|improve this question











Problem Statement: Given two binary trees and imagine that when you put one of them to cover the other, some nodes of the two trees are overlapped while the others are not.
You need to merge them into a new binary tree. The merge rule is that if two nodes overlap, then sum node values up as the new value of the merged node. Otherwise, the NOT null node will be used as the node of new tree.



My solution for the problem:



 /**
* Definition for a binary tree node.
* public class TreeNode
* int val;
* TreeNode left;
* TreeNode right;
* TreeNode(int x) val = x;
*
*/
class Solution
public TreeNode mergeTrees(TreeNode t1, TreeNode t2)
// in case if either is null, directly return one of the nodes depending on the availablity.
if(t1==null) return t2;
if(t2==null) return t1;
TreeNode left=mergeTrees(t1.left,t2.left);
TreeNode right=mergeTrees(t1.right,t2.right);
t1.val=t1.val+t2.val;
t1.left=left;
t1.right=right;
t2=null;
return t1;




I have calculated the worst-case time-complexity of the above code as O(Min.(Size of t1,Size of t2)) but I am not sure about it? Please share your analysis of it.









share|improve this question










share|improve this question




share|improve this question









asked Jan 6 at 11:10









Abhiroj Panwar

973




973




closed as off-topic by Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed Jan 8 at 8:47


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete implementation. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic." – Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed Jan 8 at 8:47


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete implementation. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic." – Antot, Mast, Sam Onela, t3chb0t, Ludisposed
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • @Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:14










  • @pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
    – Antot
    Jan 6 at 15:24










  • I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:32










  • @pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
    – Mast
    Jan 6 at 15:52










  • @Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
    – Abhiroj Panwar
    Jan 6 at 16:42
















  • @Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:14










  • @pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
    – Antot
    Jan 6 at 15:24










  • I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
    – pacmaninbw
    Jan 6 at 15:32










  • @pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
    – Mast
    Jan 6 at 15:52










  • @Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
    – Abhiroj Panwar
    Jan 6 at 16:42















@Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
– pacmaninbw
Jan 6 at 15:14




@Antot If you think it is a duplicate question, mark it as a duplicate.
– pacmaninbw
Jan 6 at 15:14












@pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
– Antot
Jan 6 at 15:24




@pacmaninbw: it's not duplicate, it's about code that copy-pasted from elsewhere.
– Antot
Jan 6 at 15:24












I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
– pacmaninbw
Jan 6 at 15:32




I suggest you ask a question on codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/questions about this. Unless it is copying your code I don't think there is a rule here about copy and paste.
– pacmaninbw
Jan 6 at 15:32












@pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
– Mast
Jan 6 at 15:52




@pacmaninbw I think the help center states it has to be code you own.
– Mast
Jan 6 at 15:52












@Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
– Abhiroj Panwar
Jan 6 at 16:42




@Antot it is my solution, the solution you have shared is different. it creates a new tree entirely where as this solution uses one of the trees in provided in the input.
– Abhiroj Panwar
Jan 6 at 16:42










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










The time complexity of the algorithm is linear,
proportional to the number of nodes in the trees.
The worst case is when both trees have the same shape,
then all the nodes in both trees will be visited.
More generally, the number of nodes visited is proportional to min(size(t1), size(2)).



I don't understand why the question is tagged with time-limit-exceeded, this posted solution should pass just fine.



A few minor improvements are possible.



  • The left and right local variables are redundant, you could assign directly to the fields of t1

  • The statement t2=null is completely unnecessary

  • Spaces around operators (like =) would make the code easier to read

Like this:



if (t1 == null) return t2;
if (t2 == null) return t1;

t1.val += t2.val;
t1.left = mergeTrees(t1.left, t2.left);
t1.right = mergeTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
return t1;





share|improve this answer




























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    The time complexity of the algorithm is linear,
    proportional to the number of nodes in the trees.
    The worst case is when both trees have the same shape,
    then all the nodes in both trees will be visited.
    More generally, the number of nodes visited is proportional to min(size(t1), size(2)).



    I don't understand why the question is tagged with time-limit-exceeded, this posted solution should pass just fine.



    A few minor improvements are possible.



    • The left and right local variables are redundant, you could assign directly to the fields of t1

    • The statement t2=null is completely unnecessary

    • Spaces around operators (like =) would make the code easier to read

    Like this:



    if (t1 == null) return t2;
    if (t2 == null) return t1;

    t1.val += t2.val;
    t1.left = mergeTrees(t1.left, t2.left);
    t1.right = mergeTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
    return t1;





    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      The time complexity of the algorithm is linear,
      proportional to the number of nodes in the trees.
      The worst case is when both trees have the same shape,
      then all the nodes in both trees will be visited.
      More generally, the number of nodes visited is proportional to min(size(t1), size(2)).



      I don't understand why the question is tagged with time-limit-exceeded, this posted solution should pass just fine.



      A few minor improvements are possible.



      • The left and right local variables are redundant, you could assign directly to the fields of t1

      • The statement t2=null is completely unnecessary

      • Spaces around operators (like =) would make the code easier to read

      Like this:



      if (t1 == null) return t2;
      if (t2 == null) return t1;

      t1.val += t2.val;
      t1.left = mergeTrees(t1.left, t2.left);
      t1.right = mergeTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
      return t1;





      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        The time complexity of the algorithm is linear,
        proportional to the number of nodes in the trees.
        The worst case is when both trees have the same shape,
        then all the nodes in both trees will be visited.
        More generally, the number of nodes visited is proportional to min(size(t1), size(2)).



        I don't understand why the question is tagged with time-limit-exceeded, this posted solution should pass just fine.



        A few minor improvements are possible.



        • The left and right local variables are redundant, you could assign directly to the fields of t1

        • The statement t2=null is completely unnecessary

        • Spaces around operators (like =) would make the code easier to read

        Like this:



        if (t1 == null) return t2;
        if (t2 == null) return t1;

        t1.val += t2.val;
        t1.left = mergeTrees(t1.left, t2.left);
        t1.right = mergeTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
        return t1;





        share|improve this answer













        The time complexity of the algorithm is linear,
        proportional to the number of nodes in the trees.
        The worst case is when both trees have the same shape,
        then all the nodes in both trees will be visited.
        More generally, the number of nodes visited is proportional to min(size(t1), size(2)).



        I don't understand why the question is tagged with time-limit-exceeded, this posted solution should pass just fine.



        A few minor improvements are possible.



        • The left and right local variables are redundant, you could assign directly to the fields of t1

        • The statement t2=null is completely unnecessary

        • Spaces around operators (like =) would make the code easier to read

        Like this:



        if (t1 == null) return t2;
        if (t2 == null) return t1;

        t1.val += t2.val;
        t1.left = mergeTrees(t1.left, t2.left);
        t1.right = mergeTrees(t1.right, t2.right);
        return t1;






        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer











        answered Jan 6 at 17:48









        janos

        95.6k12120343




        95.6k12120343












            Popular posts from this blog

            Greedy Best First Search implementation in Rust

            Function to Return a JSON Like Objects Using VBA Collections and Arrays

            C++11 CLH Lock Implementation