Precourse2 completed

[PremalSamale]

No description provided.

[super30admin]

Overall, the student's solutions demonstrate a good understanding of fundamental algorithms like binary search, quicksort, mergesort, and linked list operations. Here's a detailed evaluation for each exercise:

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(1).
• Code Quality: Well-structured and readable. The comments explain the approach clearly.
• Improvement: Could mention edge cases like empty array or array with duplicate values.

Exercise_2.java (QuickSort):

• Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the quicksort algorithm with Lomuto partition scheme.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n) average case.
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n) for recursive stack space.
• Code Quality: Good structure and readability. The partition logic is clear.
• Improvement: Could mention worst-case time complexity (O(n^2)) when array is already sorted.

Exercise_3.java (Linked List Middle):

• Correctness: The solution works but uses a less efficient approach (two passes).
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n), but could be optimized to single pass.
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(1).
• Code Quality: Good structure, but the comment mentions fast/slow pointers which aren't implemented.
• Improvement: Should implement the fast/slow pointer approach as mentioned in comments for single-pass solution.

Exercise_4.java (MergeSort):

• Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the mergesort algorithm.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(n) for auxiliary arrays.
• Code Quality: Well-structured and readable. The merge logic is clear.
• Improvement: Could optimize space usage by creating temporary arrays once and reusing them.

Exercise_5.java (Iterative QuickSort):

• Correctness: The implementation correctly follows the iterative quicksort approach.
• Time Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) for stack space, but sorting is O(n log n).
• Space Complexity: Correctly identified as O(log n) for stack space.
• Code Quality: Good structure, but the swap method is empty (should be implemented).
• Improvement: Should implement the swap method as mentioned in comments. Could mention worst-case space complexity.

General Strengths:

• Good understanding of algorithm fundamentals
• Clear comments explaining approaches
• Proper handling of edge cases in most implementations
• Correct time and space complexity analysis

Areas for Improvement:

• Implement all mentioned optimizations (like fast/slow pointers)
• Complete all method implementations (like swap in Exercise_5)
• Mention edge cases and worst-case scenarios
• Consider space optimizations where possible