MHB Verifying Sequence of Push/Pop Ops in a Stack

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around verifying the validity of two sequences of numbers generated by a series of push and pop operations on a stack. The sequence "2 5 6 7 4 8 9 3 1 0" is confirmed to be valid, as the operations can be arranged to allow this output. In contrast, the sequence "4 6 8 7 5 3 2 9 0 1" is deemed invalid because it violates the Last In, First Out (LIFO) principle of stack operations, making it impossible to pop the numbers in that order. The participants also noted a minor omission in the explanation of the first sequence, highlighting the collaborative nature of the discussion. Overall, the thread effectively clarifies the mechanics of stack operations in relation to the given sequences.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Smirk)

Consider that a sequence of 10 push and 10 pop operations is executed at an initially empty stack.
The ten push operations place the numbers $0,1, \dots, 9 $, in an ascending order, in the stack.
It is possible, that between the push operations we can have some pop operations. Each pop() operation prints the value, that is returns.

Which of the following sequence of numbers cannot be printed? For the sequences, that are valid, present the sequence push() and pop() that has to be done, and for the others justify why they cannot be printed.

  • $2 5 6 7 4 8 9 3 1 0$
  • $4 6 8 7 5 3 2 9 0 1$

That's what I have tried:

  • We push in the stack $0$, $1$, $2$, we pop $2$, we push $3$, $4$, $5$, we pop $5$, we push $6$, we pop $6$, we push $7$, we pop $7$, we pop $4$, we push $8$, we pop $8$, we push $9$, we pop $9$, we pop $1$, we pop $0$.

    So, the sequence $2 5 6 7 4 8 9 3 1 0$ can be printed.
    $$$$
  • We push in the stack $0$, $1$, $2$, $3$, $4$, we pop $4$, we push $5$, $6$, we pop $6$, we push $7$, $8$, we pop $8$, we pop $7$, $5$, $3$, $2$, we push $9$, we pop $9$, but, then, we cannot pop $0$, because of the fact that $1$ was put after $0$ and the method that we use to push/pop elements is LIFO.

    So, the second sequence is not valid.

Am I right? (Thinking)
 
Technology news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hello! (Smirk)

Consider that a sequence of 10 push and 10 pop operations is executed at an initially empty stack.
The ten push operations place the numbers $0,1, \dots, 9 $, in an ascending order, in the stack.
It is possible, that between the push operations we can have some pop operations. Each pop() operation prints the value, that is returns.

Which of the following sequence of numbers cannot be printed? For the sequences, that are valid, present the sequence push() and pop() that has to be done, and for the others justify why they cannot be printed.

  • $2 5 6 7 4 8 9 3 1 0$
  • $4 6 8 7 5 3 2 9 0 1$

That's what I have tried:

  • We push in the stack $0$, $1$, $2$, we pop $2$, we push $3$, $4$, $5$, we pop $5$, we push $6$, we pop $6$, we push $7$, we pop $7$, we pop $4$, we push $8$, we pop $8$, we push $9$, we pop $9$, we pop $1$, we pop $0$.

    So, the sequence $2 5 6 7 4 8 9 3 1 0$ can be printed.
    $$$$
  • We push in the stack $0$, $1$, $2$, $3$, $4$, we pop $4$, we push $5$, $6$, we pop $6$, we push $7$, $8$, we pop $8$, we pop $7$, $5$, $3$, $2$, we push $9$, we pop $9$, but, then, we cannot pop $0$, because of the fact that $1$ was put after $0$ and the method that we use to push/pop elements is LIFO.

    So, the second sequence is not valid.

Am I right? (Thinking)
Sounds good to me, except that in explaining the first sequence you omitted to say "pop 3" after "pop 9".
 
Opalg said:
Sounds good to me, except that in explaining the first sequence you omitted to say "pop 3" after "pop 9".

Oh yes, I am sorry... (Blush) Thanks a lot! (Smile)
 
Thread 'Is this public key encryption?'
I've tried to intuit public key encryption but never quite managed. But this seems to wrap it up in a bow. This seems to be a very elegant way of transmitting a message publicly that only the sender and receiver can decipher. Is this how PKE works? No, it cant be. In the above case, the requester knows the target's "secret" key - because they have his ID, and therefore knows his birthdate.
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top