Completed Precourse2

[Bhumika-95]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

The student's solutions demonstrate a good understanding of fundamental algorithms and data structures. Here's a detailed evaluation for each exercise:

1. Exercise_1.java (Binary Search):

   • Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the binary search algorithm.
   • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n).
   • Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) due to recursion stack.
   • Code Quality: Well-structured and readable. The recursive approach is clean.
   • Improvement: Could mention that an iterative approach would reduce space complexity to O(1).

2. Exercise_2.java (QuickSort):

   • Correctness: Proper implementation of QuickSort with Lomuto partition scheme.
   • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n) average case.
   • Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) due to recursion stack.
   • Code Quality: Good structure and readability. The partition method is clear.
   • Improvement: Could handle edge cases like empty array or already sorted array.

3. Exercise_3.java (Linked List Middle Element):

   • Correctness: Correct implementation using slow and fast pointers.
   • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n).
   • Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(1).
   • Code Quality: Clean and efficient. Good handling of empty list case.
   • Improvement: Could add comments explaining the two-pointer approach.

4. Exercise_4.java (MergeSort):

   • Correctness: Proper implementation of MergeSort algorithm.
   • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
   • Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n) for auxiliary arrays.
   • Code Quality: Well-organized with clear separation of merge and sort logic.
   • Improvement: Could optimize space usage by reusing temporary arrays.

5. Exercise_5.java (Iterative QuickSort):

   • Correctness: Correct iterative implementation using stack.
   • Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
   • Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) for stack.
   • Code Quality: Good use of stack for iteration. XOR swap is interesting but less readable.
   • Improvement: The XOR swap, while clever, is less readable than a standard swap and could be confusing for maintenance.

General Strengths:

• Consistent style and formatting across all solutions.
• Correct time and space complexity analysis for each algorithm.
• Good handling of edge cases in most implementations.

Areas for Improvement:

• Could add more comments explaining algorithmic choices.
• Some implementations could benefit from additional edge case handling.
• The XOR swap in Exercise_5, while efficient, reduces readability.