
Problem Statement
The task is to determine the minimum number of times string 'a' needs to be repeated such that string 'b' becomes a substring of the resulting string. The solution should return an integer indicating how many times 'a' should be repeated. If it is impossible for 'b' to ever be a substring of 'a' after any number of repetitions, the function should return -1. This challenge emphasizes understanding the manipulation of strings and substrings, as well as considerations on the repetition of patterns within a string context.
Examples
Example 1
Input:
a = "abcd", b = "cdabcdab"
Output:
3
Explanation:
We return 3 because by repeating a three times "abcdabcdabcd", b is a substring of it.
Example 2
Input:
a = "a", b = "aa"
Output:
2
Constraints
1 <= a.length, b.length <= 104
a
andb
consist of lowercase English letters.
Approach and Intuition
To solve this problem, we can employ a straightforward approach with a little bit of intuition on string manipulation:
Begin by understanding the relationship between the two strings. If 'b' contains characters that are not in 'a', it's immediately apparent that no amount of repetition will make 'b' a substring of repeated 'a'. In this case, return -1.
Check if repeating 'a' can incrementally build up to include 'b':
- Start by repeating 'a' until the length of the repeated string is greater than or equal to 'b'. This is your base case for the minimal repeat.
- Observe whether 'b' becomes a substring in this or fewer repetitions. Since concatenating a string involves increasing its length in blocks of itself, determine the shortest repetition where 'b' fits.
Implement a check using simple iteration:
- Construct a string by repeating 'a' increasingly until the repeated string includes 'b' as a substring or until adding more repetitions still fails to achieve this. Given the constraints, this process efficiently determines the minimal repetition.
- A consideration here lies in checking lengths sufficiently. As 'b' can be longer than 'a', but still be formed by some pattern in 'a', we may need to check by repeating 'a' several times. In the worst-case scenario, repeating 'a' up to twice its length relative to 'b' should suffice.
Calculate using the most direct approach:
- Repeat 'a' and check for the presence of 'b' until reaching the necessary number of repetitions. Utilize string operations available in most programming languages to handle these checks. This mechanism, although not optimized for performance complexities involving extremely long strings and numerous repetitions, covers typical constraints efficiently.
By understanding the constraints and behavior of strings when repeated, this method provides a comprehensible and effective solution to the problem presented.
Solutions
- Java
import java.math.BigInteger;
class Solution {
public boolean isSubsequenceRotated(int startPos, String mainStr, String targetStr) {
for (int j = 0; j < targetStr.length(); j++) {
if (mainStr.charAt((j + startPos) % mainStr.length()) != targetStr.charAt(j)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public int countRepeatsRequired(String primaryStr, String secondaryStr) {
int neededRepeats = (secondaryStr.length() - 1) / primaryStr.length() + 1;
int primeBase = 113, MODULO = 1_000_000_007;
int primeInverse = BigInteger.valueOf(primeBase).modInverse(BigInteger.valueOf(MODULO)).intValue();
long hashSecondary = 0, powerMultiplier = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < secondaryStr.length(); i++) {
hashSecondary += powerMultiplier * secondaryStr.codePointAt(i);
hashSecondary %= MODULO;
powerMultiplier = (powerMultiplier * primeBase) % MODULO;
}
long hashPrimary = 0; powerMultiplier = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < secondaryStr.length(); i++) {
hashPrimary += powerMultiplier * primaryStr.codePointAt(i % primaryStr.length());
hashPrimary %= MODULO;
powerMultiplier = (powerMultiplier * primeBase) % MODULO;
}
if (hashPrimary == hashSecondary && isSubsequenceRotated(0, primaryStr, secondaryStr)) return neededRepeats;
powerMultiplier = (powerMultiplier * primeInverse) % MODULO;
for (int i = secondaryStr.length(); i < (neededRepeats + 1) * primaryStr.length(); i++) {
hashPrimary -= primaryStr.codePointAt((i - secondaryStr.length()) % primaryStr.length());
hashPrimary *= primeInverse;
hashPrimary += powerMultiplier * primaryStr.codePointAt(i % primaryStr.length());
hashPrimary %= MODULO;
if (hashPrimary == hashSecondary && isSubsequenceRotated(i - secondaryStr.length() + 1, primaryStr, secondaryStr)) {
return i < neededRepeats * primaryStr.length() ? neededRepeats : neededRepeats + 1;
}
}
return -1;
}
}
This Java solution tackles the problem of determining how many times a string A
needs to be repeated such that another string B
is a substring of the repeated A
string. To achieve this, the algorithm primarily utilizes hashing to efficiently compare segments of strings.
The function
isSubsequenceRotated
checks if by starting from a specific position in the repeated version ofA
, stringB
is a substring. This verification involves comparing characters fromB
with characters from the rotatedA
, considering the overflow using modulo operation.The function
countRepeatsRequired
calculates the minimum number of timesA
must be repeated forB
to potentially be a substring of it. This incorporates creating a hash forB
and a rolling hash for segments ofA
as it is conceptually repeated.
The algorithm follows these steps:
- Calculate the number of times
A
must be repeated at a minimum to match or exceed the length ofB
. This is given by(length of B - 1) / length of A + 1
. - Compute hashes using a prime base (
primeBase
) and a modulo (MODULO
) for bothB
and rotating buffer equivalent in length toB
derived fromA
. - Verify substring match using the hash and by-string comparison using
isSubsequenceRotated
. - If the hash and sequence match, the computed repeat count is returned.
- If no match is found after necessary repetitions and checks, return -1.
This approach is efficient due to its use of hashing to compare segments, reducing the need for potentially expensive character-by-character comparison across multiple rotations of A
. However, correctness is preserved by falling back on direct character comparison in cases where the hash values match.
No comments yet.