PreCourse-2 Submission

[tanyasreenagesh]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Overall, the student's solutions are well-structured and demonstrate a good understanding of the algorithms. Here's a detailed evaluation for each exercise:

Exercise_1.py (Binary Search):

• Correctness: The iterative binary search is correctly implemented. However, the recursive version is defined but not used in the test case.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) (not O(n) as mentioned in the comment).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(1) for iterative, O(log n) for recursive.
• Code Quality: Good, but the unused recursive function could be confusing.
• Suggestion: Remove the recursive function or demonstrate its usage.

Exercise_2.py (QuickSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation of QuickSort with proper partitioning.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n) average and O(n²) worst case.
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) due to recursion stack.
• Code Quality: Well-structured and readable.
• Suggestion: Consider adding comments about the pivot selection strategy.

Exercise_3.py (Linked List Middle):

• Correctness: Correct implementation using a counter approach.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n) for both operations.
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(1).
• Code Quality: Good, but the comment about incrementing/decrementing mid index isn't relevant here.
• Suggestion: Consider adding error handling for empty list case.

Exercise_4.py (MergeSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation of MergeSort.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n).
• Code Quality: Well-structured with clear comments.
• Suggestion: The variable 'curr' could be renamed to 'k' for better clarity.

Exercise_5.py (Iterative QuickSort):

• Correctness: Correct implementation of iterative QuickSort using a stack.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n) average and O(n²) worst case.
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n).
• Code Quality: Good, with clear comments.
• Suggestion: The stack operations could be made more explicit with tuple packing/unpacking.

General Strengths:

• Good code organization and structure
• Appropriate comments explaining the logic
• Correct time and space complexity analysis
• Proper handling of edge cases

Areas for Improvement:

• Some comments don't match the actual complexity (Exercise_1)
• Unused code in Exercise_1
• Could add more detailed comments about algorithm choices
• Variable naming could be improved in some places