MIT 6.006 Introduction to Algorithms, Fall 2011 View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/6-006F11 Instructor: Srini Devadas License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms More courses at ocw.mit.edu
Пікірлер: 106
@SparshPaliwal6 жыл бұрын
Everyone please stop saying the lecture is worthless. This lecture is a Primer for shortest path algorithms. Understanding negative weights, negative loops was pretty important. Also learning about all different problems like exponential number of vertices. Surely if you had gone through the topic already might be useless to you, so you can skip it. But if you are going through shortest path algos for the first time, its a good lecture.
@ryanc78402 жыл бұрын
Right. Without this one, subsequent lectures are hard to grasp at least regarding the notations. I concur that this one is a good and necessary primer.
@sergeykholkhunov18882 жыл бұрын
02:30 motivation, Dijkstra, Bellman-Ford 08:25 definitions (path, weight of path, shortest-path problem) 11:10 about time complexity 14:21 weighted graphs 17:56 example 23:55 predecessor relationship definition 26:40 negative weights 32:00 negative weight cycles 37:30 general structure of shortest-path algorithms, relaxation 45:02 example (problems with exponential number of paths) 50:35 optimal substructure (shortest path's subpaths, triangle inequality)
@zvezdalion8 жыл бұрын
This professor's lecture is so structured! He really stresses the important things. So easy to get the big picture, but also gives you the often-overlooked details (e.g., it's not the neg. weight edges, but the *cycles* that are a problem; Dijkstra is essentially *linear*)
@md.sayeedrahman25533 жыл бұрын
loved it! personally i feel attached to this professor! his lecture is so amazing!!!
@SzechSauce4 жыл бұрын
Isn’t there a mistake at 48:20? How can you relax the edge from v4 to v5 to then have d(v5) be 12? That would mean v4 can be reached in 12, and v5 can also be reached in 12? That can’t be correct...? Really great lecture otherwise, quite surprised at all the negative comments on here...
@marvinmurphy433010 жыл бұрын
neg weights? 28:55 - What about graphs being represented as electric circuits? Some branches have passive components like resistors that cause a potential drop and some branches have active components like batteries that cause a potential gain. Intersections or splits in the circuit are vertices. The connections between splits are edges and the weights are the voltage gain (+ve) or drop (-ve) of that connection.
@surjayanghosh58724 жыл бұрын
thats an interesting obeservation! ..... but how would we use the different paths/ because in electrical circuits, current (I) is gonna flow in all the branches, i mean we cant tell it to use only a certain path. So, can you think of any way it could be used? but good analogy nonetheless.
@iamparitosh2 жыл бұрын
Also the total potential gain of any cycle is zero here
@Qladstone7 жыл бұрын
If each edge represents a multiplier, and you want to minimize the product of the multipliers along a path; that is equivalent to minimizing the sum of the logarithms of those multipliers. Logarithms have a range from -inf to +inf, and so include both negative, zero, and positive values. One commonly cited example is where the multipliers represent currency conversion rates; where each vertex represents one currency, and edges represent conversion rates between currencies.
@pengliu998710 ай бұрын
Great example of negative weight graph. Thanks for sharing.
@loganwishartcraig6 жыл бұрын
This lecture was definitely fine.
@Tintak_hatpin3 жыл бұрын
I like the way he says "you could imagine"
@lockersrandom61613 жыл бұрын
Thank YOU MIT.
@MrKingoverall3 жыл бұрын
Operations Research Major here: LOVE YOU MAN !! :)
@cskwillreturn24737 жыл бұрын
At 12:43, did he say O(E^2) possible weights? I think it should be V^2.
@moongumoongu6 жыл бұрын
yeah, jotted that down and got really confused later. if there are |E| edges, the number of possible unique weights is |E|... and E=O(V^2), so yeah, i think he meant to say roughly V^2 possible weights.
@bigdildo5 жыл бұрын
agreee
@csl13844 жыл бұрын
Glad to see I am not the only one who thought this.
@ShivamPatel-ww1up3 жыл бұрын
my doubt exactly
@aerronpro11332 жыл бұрын
Wow this lec is genius, generalises whole shortest path in a lec
@anunaybagga29486 жыл бұрын
i understood each and everything sir said and hence i don't get the hate comments out here.
@mohitsingh-nf5vl4 жыл бұрын
Can u explain me time complexity plz??
@zeronothinghere93343 жыл бұрын
@@mohitsingh-nf5vl Look at the first video in the playlist. This is the 15th video in the series after all.
@eepassion97205 жыл бұрын
29:36 you will see Victor giving a example about negative weight. We would know more about MIT TA work. That is so different in my college. I don't even know who is my TA in the entire of my college.
@user-td8zb9xo9k2 жыл бұрын
happy to see indian professor here
@yashjain69455 жыл бұрын
What does he mean by at least gets credit for it 4:27
@RalyJoey7 жыл бұрын
48:22 how did the instructor obtain 12 for the second last vertex of this directed graph?
@fredwu68127 жыл бұрын
that was a mistake.
@anunaybagga29486 жыл бұрын
Fred Wu no man it is not a mistake watch it again
@tu-ningting28674 жыл бұрын
Anunay Bagga It's been 2 years. Hope you now see it is a mistake. If not, watch it again
@SanghoBose55 жыл бұрын
Travelling upstream in river be considered as negative weight path.
@gouravgoel29743 жыл бұрын
this is gold
@josh791010 жыл бұрын
48:20 I think he got the 13 ->12 from v5 wrong
@fabischn9010 жыл бұрын
It's perfectly correct. After relaxing the edge (v4, v6) he relaxed edge (v5, v6)
@PK-en1bm10 жыл бұрын
***** I am thinking about relaxation of the edge (v4, v5)??
@fabischn9010 жыл бұрын
Prasanjit Khuntia You would understand, if you just had continued watching for another 2 minutes. Keep calm :)
@JustinLiang09 жыл бұрын
Yeah odd... I am not sure how he can "relax" the edge like that because nothing seems to satisfy d[v] > d[u] + w(u,v) at that point.
@botelhorui9 жыл бұрын
Justin Liang Yes, its a mistake
@Mrimadeyoufall2 жыл бұрын
So helpful
@isbestlizard3 жыл бұрын
why are cycles even a thing? if they add positive path length you'd obviously never take them, if they add negative path length you'd obviously go around around them forever so surely it makes no sense to even have a graph with cycles when asking the question 'what's the shortest path'.. without adding extra criteria like 'without retracing the same edge' or 'without visiting the same node more than x times'
@neuron81863 жыл бұрын
i don't understand the hate both teacher are best and you haters are nothing more than a keyboard warrior how did you get the audacity to hate people providing free education
@mayonesacosmica10 жыл бұрын
how about circuits where there are multiple paths w/ positive or negative voltage differentials for a motivation? if so, I can send you my address for a cushion... ;)
@Joshuaposada8 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't you just use the magnitude? I'm not really sure, but that's something to think about
@abdelrhmansamir14265 жыл бұрын
I know it's too late i guess. but can anyone explain why does the asymptotic relation between edges and vertices is v^2? don't know if i said it correctly as well just didn't get that point.
@vamshidharreddy25805 жыл бұрын
maximum number of edges possible is of the order v^2. which is same as maximum number of handshakes among 'v' people.
@shubhankitsingh51965 жыл бұрын
nC2
@thehvhnk3 жыл бұрын
discrete math? Imagine you pick two random nodes in a bunch of nodes so when total of nodes is N therefore total of number of ways is NC2 ~ n^2
@Aryan-xj1qz3 жыл бұрын
In a complete graph, the number of edges is V choose 2 (The total number of ways by which we can pair two vertices), which equals V*(V-1)/2. This is of order V^2. Hence, E = O(V^2)
@user-nu2sz2wg3i2 жыл бұрын
His lecture is very meticulous
@ChristopherPelnar Жыл бұрын
Negative weights are like hitting wormholes in space-time.
@dbporter6 жыл бұрын
41:20 49:00
@rithwikteja21682 жыл бұрын
I need to find victor now
@hoboishjoeishme9 жыл бұрын
45:23 sounds like someone's squeezing out a little fart
@kidsworld55847 жыл бұрын
lol
@swapnilgupta91536 жыл бұрын
I came for the this exact comment.
@osamarajput99565 жыл бұрын
legend
@fredwu68124 жыл бұрын
What are you here for? Listening to farting or lectures?
@nikhilrajput50304 жыл бұрын
Can anyone help me why E=O(V^2)??
@abhaikollara58114 жыл бұрын
Number of possible edges between n vertices is nC2 i.e the number of ways to pick 2 vertices from a given set of n vertices. Unless I screwed up, replacing r=2 in the equation for nC2 should derive into (V^2 - 1)/2 which is O(V^2).
@nikhilrajput50304 жыл бұрын
@@abhaikollara5811 Thanks man!
@legendarylea5603 жыл бұрын
@@abhaikollara5811 I think it's not about nC2 (combinations) but nP2 (permutations), so nPr -> n^r -> n^2. Am I wrong?
@cvprasanthkumar3 жыл бұрын
I think it is because every Vertex can have atmost V Edges(Unless we are talking about Multi Graph). So you have V Vertex with each having V Edges, so overall edges are V^2
@ShabbirAhmed-ug8sv9 жыл бұрын
22:25
@rohangupta34868 жыл бұрын
how he wrote E=O(V^2) ?????????????????
@cskwillreturn24737 жыл бұрын
Assume two vertices v1 and v2. The total number of possible edges would be 4 which is 2^2 ( 2= total number of vertices). All possible edges v1 -> v2, v2 -> v1, v1->v1, v2->v2. They all add up to 4. But this is only correct if the graph is directed. If undirected, I think it should be v(v-1)/2.
@kp27186 жыл бұрын
imagine an adjacency matrix
@legendarylea5603 жыл бұрын
@IndiaRockLovers I think it's not about nC2 (combinations) but nP2 (permutations), so nPr -> n^r -> n^2. Am I wrong?
@legendarylea5603 жыл бұрын
@IndiaRockLovers Perfect, thx
@mystmuffin36003 жыл бұрын
it's about how many (u,v) pairs can be formed. Directed edges would yield nP2 edges given the graph is simple (u cannot be equal to v) and nC2 edges for undirected as (u,v) and (v,u) would only be counted once
@yangyinjedi8 жыл бұрын
I like the other professor a little better I feel like his lectures are more random and less structured...I felt like this professor was just teaching by the book...But they're are both great sup lectures
@csl13844 жыл бұрын
14:05 If Dijkstra is "basically" linear time [O(VlogV + E)], then Bellman-Ford [O(VE)] should be "basically" quadratic time, not cubic time.
@philodev8744 жыл бұрын
No, the professor explains how E’s asymptotic upper bound is V^2(imagine each vertex containing an edge to every other vertex) therefore V * E = V * V^2 = V^3 (asymptotic upper bound)
@csl13844 жыл бұрын
@@philodev874 agreed, thanks
@philodev8744 жыл бұрын
c sl no problem!
@isbestlizard3 жыл бұрын
why would anyone imagine the weight defined for an edge WOULD affect the calculation speed of an algorithm? that'd be like thinking the 'weight' of an object would affect the time it took to sort it. 'this is a really heavy object so it takes longer to add it to the list' wot no 'this is a really long path so it takes longer to calculate its length' WOT NO WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT :V
@adhishmalviya24083 жыл бұрын
49:30 the random relaxing of edges can be exponential and dependent on order of weights
@yettodecideahandle3 жыл бұрын
Srini is very good and seem to explain thing simple, Eric makes the same lectures complicated.
@elliott81753 жыл бұрын
Erik is the boss. I love his intuitive explanations. He gets straight to the ideas in a really down-to-earth way: "Dynamic programming is really just careful brute force". If you get DP, you realise how other teachers make it out to be much more complicated than it is.
@brendawilliams80622 жыл бұрын
Negative takes so much work with squares and cubes. People don’t want what appears to be infinities of work. They want a genesis of general and fast tracked work.
@jshellenberger78765 ай бұрын
#POW
@tchappyha40344 жыл бұрын
11:55 very dangerous!
@douzigege6 жыл бұрын
I can feel the pain. The reason why sometimes he is not delivering the lectures is probably the fact that Dr. Devadas is not a mathematician like Erik.
@ankushmenat4 жыл бұрын
Nonsense
@saicharanmarrivada5077 Жыл бұрын
He has higher h-index compared to Erik
@ravitejapothala71145 жыл бұрын
Mm,kumms
@connectication9 жыл бұрын
30:32, sooo awkward
@rj-nj3uk4 жыл бұрын
He did not taught dijkstra properly.
@ChrisLeeX8 жыл бұрын
While I'm a big fan of this series and I like the lecturer, this particular lecture is terrible. Just skip it.
@roylee31968 жыл бұрын
+Chris Lee Yes you're right.
@satadhi6 жыл бұрын
Hi can you be more specific please ? cause i don't see anything wrong in this , maybe i am missing something ?
@xinli62435 жыл бұрын
I like Eric.
@kp27186 жыл бұрын
You get to appreciate the quality of a lecture after watching something like this. Where's Eric??? I think this guy forgot whats' the point of lectures, so he just rambles.
@piyushsharma68115 жыл бұрын
Disappointed.
@chenzhiye6337 жыл бұрын
waste of time=,=
@jsridhar727 жыл бұрын
Just unberable. Wasted precious time. You wont gain anything by watching this. Just skip it.