I recently came across a claim about binary trees that I was unable to prove. Given a binary tree, $$$\sum{|child_l|\times |child_r| } = O(N^2)$$$
Could someone provide proof and/or a way to intuitively explain this?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3845 |
2 | jiangly | 3707 |
3 | Benq | 3630 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3573 |
5 | Geothermal | 3569 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
7 | jqdai0815 | 3532 |
8 | ecnerwala | 3501 |
9 | gyh20 | 3447 |
10 | Rebelz | 3409 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 171 |
2 | adamant | 163 |
2 | awoo | 163 |
4 | TheScrasse | 154 |
5 | nor | 153 |
6 | maroonrk | 152 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 152 |
8 | Petr | 145 |
9 | pajenegod | 144 |
9 | orz | 144 |
I recently came across a claim about binary trees that I was unable to prove. Given a binary tree, $$$\sum{|child_l|\times |child_r| } = O(N^2)$$$
Could someone provide proof and/or a way to intuitively explain this?
I recently came across a very interesting Data Structure, that to me, was completely revolutionary in how I view data structures. That is, Implicit Treaps. But on to my question: Now that I'm pretty familiar with the implementation of Treaps and its applications, should I learn Splay Trees (I will learn it regardless eventually, but I have a competition coming up and time is limited)? To narrow down the question, are there problems that can be solved with Splay Trees but not with Treaps?
Through a brief research session, I found the following blog from CF that partially answers my question. https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/60499 Apparently, Link Cut Trees can be maintained with Splay Trees in N log N time while Treaps have an additional log factor. Are there other instances of this?
Name |
---|