Lec4 GreedyAlgorithmsI

4.
G REEDY A LGORITHMS I
‣ coin changin
‣ interval schedulin
‣ interval partitionin
‣ scheduling to minimize lateness
g
4. G REEDY A LGORITHMS I
‣ coin changin
g
Coin changing
Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

devise a method to pay amount to customer using fewest coins.
Ex. 34¢.
3
Coin changing

Ex. 34¢.
3
Coin changing

Ex. 34¢.
Cashier′s algorithm. At each iteration, add coin of the largest value that does not
take us past the amount to be paid.
3
Coin changing

Ex. 34¢.
Ex. $2.89.
3
Coin changing

Ex. 34¢.
Ex. $2.89.
3
Cashier′s algorithm
At each iteration, add coin of the largest value that does not take us past the amount
to be paid.
CASHIERS-ALGORITHM (x, c1, c2, …, cn)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SORT n coin denominations so that 0 < c1 < c2 < … < cn.

S ← ∅. multiset of coins selected
WHILE (x > 0)
k ← largest coin denomination ck such that ck ≤ x.
IF (no such k)
RETURN “no solution.
ELSE
x ← x – ck.
S ← S ∪ { k }.
RETURN S.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
”
Greedy algorithms I: quiz 1
Is the cashier’s algorithm optimal
A. Yes, greedy algorithms are always optimal.
B. Yes, for any set of coin denominations c1 < c2 < … < cn provided c1 = 1.
C. Yes, because of special properties of U.S. coin denominations
D. No.
5
?
Is the cashier’s algorithm optimal
A. Yes, greedy algorithms are always optimal.
B. Yes, for any set of coin denominations c1 < c2 < … < cn provided c1 = 1.
C. Yes, because of special properties of U.S. coin denominations
D. No.
5
?
Cashier′s algorithm (for arbitrary coin denominations)
Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?
6
A. No. Consider U.S. postage: 1, 10, 21, 34, 70, 100, 350, 1225, 1500.
6
・Cashier’s algorithm: 140¢ = 100 + 34 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.
6
・Optimal: 140¢ = 70 + 70.
6
・Optimal: 140¢ = 70 + 70.
A. No. It may not even lead to a feasible solution if c1 > 1: 7, 8, 9.
6
・Optimal: 140¢ = 70 + 70.

・Cashier’s algorithm: 15¢ = 9 + ?.
6
・Optimal: 140¢ = 70 + 70.

・Cashier’s algorithm: 15¢ = 9 + ?.
・Optimal: 15¢ = 7 + 8.
6
Properties of any optimal solution (for U.S. coin denominations)
Property. Number of pennies ≤ 4

Pf. Replace 5 pennies with 1 nickel
Property. Number of nickels ≤ 1

Property. Number of quarters ≤ 3.
Property. Number of nickels + number of dimes ≤ 2

Pf
・Recall: ≤ 1nickel.
・Replace 3 dimes and 0 nickels with 1 quarter and 1 nickel
・Replace 2 dimes and 1 nickel with 1 quarter.
dollar quarter dimes nickels pennies

(100¢) (25¢) (10¢) (5¢) (1¢) 7
.
Optimality of cashier′s algorithm (for U.S. coin denominations)
Theorem. Cashier’s algorithm is optimal for U.S. coins { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 }
Pf. [ by induction on amount to be paid x
・Consider optimal way to change ck ≤ x < ck+1 : greedy takes coin k
・We claim that any optimal solution must take coin k
- if not, it needs enough coins of type c1, …, ck–1 to add up to x
- table below indicates no optimal solution can do thi
・Problem reduces to coin-changing x – ck cents, which, by induction,
is optimally solved by cashier’s algorithm. ▪
all optimal solution max value of coin denomination

k ck
must satisfy c1, c2, …, ck–1 in any optimal solution
1 1 P ≤ 4 –
2 5 N ≤ 1 4
3 10 N+D ≤ 2 4+5=9
4 25 Q ≤ 3 20 + 4 = 24
5 100 no limit 75 + 24 = 99
8
s
‣ coin changin
SECTION 4.1
g
Interval scheduling
・Job j starts at sj and nishes at fj.
h
time
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10
fi
Interval scheduling

・Two jobs are compatible if they don’t overlap.
d
jobs d and
e
are incompatible
h
time
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10
g
fi
Interval scheduling

・Two jobs are compatible if they don’t overlap.
・Goal: nd maximum subset of mutually compatible jobs.
d
jobs d and
e
are incompatible
h
time
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10
fi
g
fi
Consider jobs in some order, taking each job provided it′s compatible
with the ones already taken. Which rule is optimal
A. [Earliest start time] Consider jobs in ascending order of sj.
B. [Earliest nish time] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj.
C. [Shortest interval] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj – sj.
D. None of the above.
11
fi
?
11
fi
?
counterexample for earliest start time
11
fi
?
counterexample for earliest

shorteststart time
interval
11
fi
?
Interval scheduling: earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm
EARLIEST-FINISH-TIME-FIRST (n, s1, s2, …, sn , f1, f2, …, fn)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SORT jobs by nish times and renumber so that f1 ≤ f2 ≤ … ≤ fn.

S ← ∅. set of jobs selected
FOR j = 1 TO
IF (job j is compatible with S)

S ← S ∪ { j }.
RETURN S.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposition. Can implement earliest- nish-time rst in O(n log n) time.

・Keep track of job j* that was added last to S
・Job j is compatible with S iff sj ≥ fj*
・Sorting by nish times takes O(n log n) time.
12
fi
fi
n
fi
.
fi
.
fi
fi
_
Interval scheduling: analysis of earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm
Theorem. The earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm is optimal.
13
fi
fi
fi
fi
Pf. [by contradiction]
13
fi
fi
fi
fi

・Assume greedy is not optimal, and let’s see what happens.
13
fi
fi
fi
fi

・Let i1, i2, ... ik denote set of jobs selected by greedy.
Greedy: i1 i2 ir ir+1 ... ik
13
fi
fi
fi
fi

・Let j1, j2, ... jm denote set of jobs in an optimal solution with
i1 = j1, i2 = j2, ..., ir = jr for the largest possible value of r.
Optimal: j1 j2 jr jr+1 ... jm
13
fi
fi
fi
fi

job jr+1 exist

because m > k
13
s
fi
fi
fi
fi

job ir+1 exists and nishes no later than jr+1
job jr+1 exist

because m > k
13
s
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi

job ir+1 exists and nishes no later than jr+1
job jr+1 exist why not replac

because m > k job jr+1 with job ir+1?
13
s
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
Theorem. The earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm is optimal
Pf. [by contradiction

・Assume greedy is not optimal, and let’s see what happens
・Let i1, i2, ... ik denote set of jobs selected by greedy
job ir+1 exists and nishes before jr+1
Optimal: j1 j2 jr ir+1 ... jm
solution still feasible and optima

(but contradicts maximality of r)
14
fi
]
fi
fi
fi
.
fi
Suppose that each job also has a positive weight and the goal is to
nd a maximum weight subset of mutually compatible intervals.
Is the earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm still optimal?
A. Yes, because greedy algorithms are always optimal.
B. Yes, because the same proof of correctness is valid
C. No, because the same proof of correctness is no longer valid
D. No, because you could assign a huge weight to a job that overlaps
the job with the earliest nish time.
counterexample for earliest nish time
weight = 100
weight = 1
15
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
.
Suppose that each job also has a positive weight and the goal is to
nd a maximum weight subset of mutually compatible intervals.
Is the earliest- nish-time- rst algorithm still optimal?
A. Yes, because greedy algorithms are always optimal.
B. Yes, because the same proof of correctness is valid
C. No, because the same proof of correctness is no longer valid
D. No, because you could assign a huge weight to a job that overlaps
the job with the earliest nish time.
weight = 100
weight = 1
15
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
.
‣ coin changin
SECTION 4.1
g
Interval partitioning
・Lecture j starts at sj and nishes at fj

・Goal: nd minimum number of classrooms to schedule all lectures
so that no two lectures occur at the same time in the same room.
Ex. This schedule uses 4 classrooms to schedule 10 lectures.
jobs e and
are incompatible
4 e j
3 c d g
2 b h
1 a f i
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

17
fi
g
fi
.
Interval partitioning
・Lecture j starts at sj and nishes at fj

・Goal: nd minimum number of classrooms to schedule all lectures
so that no two lectures occur at the same time in the same room
Ex. This schedule uses 3 classrooms to schedule 10 lectures
intervals are ope

(need only 3 classrooms at 2pm)
3 c d f j
2 b g i
1 a e h
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

18
fi
n
fi
.
Consider lectures in some order, assigning each lecture to rst

available classroom (opening a new classroom if none is available).
Which rule is optimal
A. [Earliest start time] Consider lectures in ascending order of sj.
B. [Earliest nish time] Consider lectures in ascending order of fj.
C. [Shortest interval] Consider lectures in ascending order of fj – sj.
19
fi
?
fi

19
fi
?
fi

3
2
1
19
fi
fi
?
fi

counterexample for shortest interval
3
2
1
19
fi
?
fi
Interval partitioning: earliest-start-time- rst algorithm
EARLIEST-START-TIME-FIRST (n, s1, s2, …, sn , f1, f2, …, fn)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SORT lectures by start times and renumber so that s1 ≤ s2 ≤ … ≤ sn

d ← 0. number of allocated classrooms
FOR j = 1 TO
IF (lecture j is compatible with some classroom)
Schedule lecture j in any such classroom k
ELSE
Allocate a new classroom d + 1
Schedule lecture j in classroom d + 1
d ← d + 1.
RETURN schedule
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20
n
fi
_
Interval partitioning: earliest-start-time- rst algorithm
Proposition. The earliest-start-time- rst algorithm can be implemented in O(n log n)

time.
Pf. Store classrooms in a priority queue (key = nish time of its last lecture).
・To determine whether lecture j is compatible with some classroom,
compare sj to key of min classroom k in priority queue
・To add lecture j to classroom k, increase key of classroom k to fj.
・Total number of priority queue operations is O(n)
・Sorting by start times takes O(n log n) time. ▪
Remark. This implementation chooses a classroom k whose nish time

of its last lecture is the earliest.
21
fi
fi
fi
.
fi
Interval partitioning: lower bound on optimal solution
Def. The depth of a set of open intervals is the maximum number of intervals that
contain any given point.
depth = 3
3 c d f j
2 b g i
1 a e h
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

22
Key observation. Number of classrooms needed ≥ depth.
depth = 3
3 c d f j
2 b g i
1 a e h
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

22
Q. Does minimum number of classrooms needed always equal depth?
depth = 3
3 c d f j
2 b g i
1 a e h
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

22
Q. Does minimum number of classrooms needed always equal depth?

A. Yes! Moreover, earliest-start-time- rst algorithm nds a schedule
whose number of classrooms equals the depth.
depth = 3
3 c d f j
2 b g i
1 a e h
9 9:30 10 10:30 11 11:30 12 12:30 1 1:30 2 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 time

22
fi
fi
Interval partitioning: analysis of earliest-start-time- rst algorithm
Observation. The earliest-start-time rst algorithm never schedules two

incompatible lectures in the same classroom.
Theorem. Earliest-start-time- rst algorithm is optimal

Pf.
・Let d = number of classrooms that the algorithm allocates
・Classroom d is opened because we needed to schedule a lecture, say j,
that is incompatible with a lecture in each of d – 1 other classrooms
・Thus, these d – 1 lectures each end after sj
・Since we sorted by start time, each of these incompatible lectures start no later
than sj
・Thus, we have d lectures overlapping at time sj + ε
・Key observation ⇒ all schedules use ≥ d classrooms. ▪
23

fi
fi
.
fi
.
‣ coin changin
SECTION 4.2
g
Scheduling to minimizing lateness
25
・Single resource processes one job at a time.
25

・Job j requires tj units of processing time and is due at time dj.
1 2 3 4 5 6
tj 3 2 1 4 3 2
dj 6 8 9 9 14 15
25

・If j starts at time sj, it nishes at time fj = sj + tj.
1 2 3 4 5 6
tj 3 2 1 4 3 2
dj 6 8 9 9 14 15
d3 = 9 d2 = 8 d6 = 15 d1 = 6 d5 = 14 d4 = 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
25
fi

・Lateness: ℓj = max { 0, fj – dj }.
1 2 3 4 5 6
tj 3 2 1 4 3 2
dj 6 8 9 9 14 15
lateness = 2 lateness = 0
d3 = 9 d2 = 8 d6 = 15 d1 = 6 d5 = 14 d4 = 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
25
fi

・Lateness: ℓj = max { 0, fj – dj }.
・Goal: schedule all jobs to minimize maximum lateness L = maxj ℓj.
1 2 3 4 5 6
tj 3 2 1 4 3 2
dj 6 8 9 9 14 15
lateness = 2 lateness = 0 max lateness = 6
d3 = 9 d2 = 8 d6 = 15 d1 = 6 d5 = 14 d4 = 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
25
fi
Schedule jobs according to some natural order. Which order minimizes

the maximum lateness
A. [shortest processing time] Ascending order of processing time tj.
B. [earliest deadline rst] Ascending order of deadline dj.
C. [smallest slack] Ascending order of slack: dj – tj.
26
fi
?

26
fi
?

counterexample for shortest processing time
1 2
L =
tj 9 10
L* = 0
dj 100 10
26
9
fi
?

counterexample for smallest slack
1 2
L =
tj 1 10
L* = 1
dj 2 10
26
9
fi
?
Minimizing lateness: earliest deadline rst
EARLIEST-DEADLINE-FIRST (n, t1, t2, …, tn , d1, d2, …, dn)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SORT jobs by due times and renumber so that d1 ≤ d2 ≤ … ≤ dn

t←0
FOR j = 1 TO
Assign job j to interval [t, t + tj ].
sj ← t ; fj ← t + tj
t ← t + tj
RETURN intervals [s1, f1], [s2, f2], …, [sn, fn].
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
max lateness L = 1
d1 = 6 d2 = 8 d3 = 9 d4 = 9 d5 = 14 d6 = 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
27
.
fi
_
Minimizing lateness: no idle time
Observation 1. There exists an optimal schedule with no idle time.
an optimal schedule d=4 d=6 d = 12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
28

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
28

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
28

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
an optimal schedul d=4 d=6 d = 12

with no idle time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
28
e

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
an optimal schedul d=4 d=6 d = 12

with no idle time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Observation 2. The earliest-deadline- rst schedule has no idle time.
28
e
fi
Minimizing lateness: inversions
Def. Given a schedule S, an inversion is a pair of jobs i and j such that:

i < j but j is scheduled before i.
inversion if i < j
a schedule wit
j i
an inversion
recall: we assume the jobs are numbered so that d1 ≤ d2 ≤ … ≤ dn
29
h

i < j but j is scheduled before i.
inversion if i < j
a schedule wit
j i
an inversion
Observation 3. The earliest-deadline- rst schedule is the unique idle-free schedule

with no inversions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 … n
29
h
fi

i < j but j is scheduled before i
inversion if i < j
a schedule wit
j i
an inversion
Observation 4. If an idle-free schedule has an inversion, then it has an adjacent

inversion
Pf two inverted jobs scheduled consecutively
・Suppose there are no adjacent inversions

・Let i– j be a closest inversion (which is not an adjacent inversion)
・Let k be element immediately to the right of j
・Case 1. [ j > k ] Then j–k is an adjacent inversion. (Contradiction
・Case 2. [ j < k ] Then i–k is a closer inversion since i < j < k. (Contradiction) ※
j k i
30
.

i < j but j is scheduled before i
inversion if i < j
fi
befor
exchange
j i
afte
exchange i j
f ʹj
Key claim. Exchanging two adjacent, inverted jobs i and j reduces the number of
inversions by 1 and does not increase the max lateness
Pf. Let ℓ be the lateness before the swap, and let ℓʹ be it afterwards
・ℓʹk = ℓk for all k ≠ i, j.
・ℓʹi ≤ ℓi.
・If job j is late, ℓʹj = f ʹj – dj de nition
= fi – dj j now nishes at time fi

≤ fi – di i < j ⇒ di ≤ dj
≤ ℓi . de nition
31
fi
fi
r
fi
e
Minimizing lateness: analysis of earliest-deadline- rst algorithm
Theorem. The earliest-deadline- rst schedule S is optimal
optimal schedule ca
Pf. [by contradiction] have inversions
De ne S* to be an optimal schedule with the fewest inversions

・Can assume S* has no idle time Observation 1
・Case 1. [ S* has no inversions ] Then S = S* Observation 3
・Case 2. [ S* has an inversion

- let i–j be an adjacent inversio Observation 4
- exchanging jobs i and j decreases the number of inversions by 1

without increasing the max latenes key claim
- contradicts “fewest inversions” part of the de nition of S* ※
32
fi
n
fi
s
fi
.
fi
.
Greedy analysis strategies
Greedy algorithm stays ahead. Show that after each step of the greedy algorithm,
its solution is at least as good as any other algorithm’s.
Structural. Discover a simple “structural” bound asserting that every possible

solution must have a certain value. Then show that your algorithm always achieves
this bound.
Exchange argument. Gradually transform any solution to the one found by the
greedy algorithm without hurting its quality.
Other greedy algorithms. Gale–Shapley, Kruskal, Prim, Dijkstra, Huffman, …
33

Lec4 GreedyAlgorithmsI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Lec4 GreedyAlgorithmsI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lec4 GreedyAlgorithmsI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

Goal. Given U. S. currency denominations { 1, 5, 10, 25, 100 },

CASHIERS-ALGORITHM (x, c1, c2, …, cn)

SORT n coin denominations so that 0 < c1 < c2 < … < cn.

Greedy algorithms I: quiz 1

Is the cashier’s algorithm optimal

A. Yes, greedy algorithms are always optimal.

C. Yes, because of special properties of U.S. coin denominations

Greedy algorithms I: quiz 1

Is the cashier’s algorithm optimal

A. Yes, greedy algorithms are always optimal.

C. Yes, because of special properties of U.S. coin denominations

Cashier′s algorithm (for arbitrary coin denominations)

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

A. No. It may not even lead to a feasible solution if c1 > 1: 7, 8, 9.

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

A. No. It may not even lead to a feasible solution if c1 > 1: 7, 8, 9.

Q. Is cashier’s algorithm optimal for any set of denominations?

A. No. It may not even lead to a feasible solution if c1 > 1: 7, 8, 9.

Property. Number of pennies ≤ 4

Property. Number of nickels ≤ 1

Property. Number of nickels + number of dimes ≤ 2

dollar quarter dimes nickels pennies

Optimality of cashier′s algorithm (for U.S. coin denominations)

all optimal solution max value of coin denomination

・Job j starts at sj and nishes at fj.

・Job j starts at sj and nishes at fj.

・Job j starts at sj and nishes at fj.

A. [Earliest start time] Consider jobs in ascending order of sj.

B. [Earliest nish time] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj.

C. [Shortest interval] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj – sj.

D. None of the above.

Greedy algorithms I: quiz 2

A. [Earliest start time] Consider jobs in ascending order of sj.

B. [Earliest nish time] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj.

C. [Shortest interval] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj – sj.

D. None of the above.

Greedy algorithms I: quiz 2

A. [Earliest start time] Consider jobs in ascending order of sj.

B. [Earliest nish time] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj.

C. [Shortest interval] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj – sj.

D. None of the above.

counterexample for earliest start time

Greedy algorithms I: quiz 2

A. [Earliest start time] Consider jobs in ascending order of sj.

B. [Earliest nish time] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj.

C. [Shortest interval] Consider jobs in ascending order of fj – sj.

D. None of the above.

counterexample for earliest