If their range is limited (say between -100 and 100), it's easy.
Create an array quant[-100..100] then just cycle through your linked list, executing:
quant[value] = quant[value] + 1
Then the following loop will do the trick.
for i = -100 to 100:
j = 10 - i
for k = 1 to quant[i] * quant[j]
output i, " ", j
Even if their range isn't limited, you can have a more efficient method than what you proposed, by sorting the values first and then just keeping counts rather than individual values (same as the above solution).
This is achieved by running two pointers, one at the start of the list and one at the end. When the numbers at those pointers add up to 10, output them and move the end pointer down and the start pointer up.
When they're greater than 10, move the end pointer down. When they're less, move the start pointer up.
This relies on the sorted nature. Less than 10 means you need to make the sum higher (move start pointer up). Greater than 10 means you need to make the sum less (end pointer down). Since they're are no duplicates in the list (because of the counts), being equal to 10 means you move both pointers.
Stop when the pointers pass each other.
There's one more tricky bit and that's when the pointers are equal and the value sums to 10 (this can only happen when the value is 5, obviously).
You don't output the number of pairs based on the product, rather it's based on the product of the value minus 1. That's because a value 5 with count of 1 doesn't actually sum to 10 (since there's only one 5).
So, for the list:
2 3 1 3 5 7 10 -1 11
you get:
Index a b c d e f g h
Value -1 1 2 3 5 7 10 11
Count 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
- You start pointer
p1 at a and p2 at h. Since -1 + 11 = 10, you output those two numbers (as above, you do it N times where N is the product of the counts). Thats one copy of (-1,11). Then you move p1 to b and p2 to g.
1 + 10 > 10 so leave p1 at b, move p2 down to f.1 + 7 < 10 so move p1 to c, leave p2 at f.2 + 7 < 10 so move p1 to d, leave p2 at f.3 + 7 = 10, output two copies of (3,7) since the count of d is 2, move p1 to e, p2 to e.5 + 5 = 10 but p1 = p2 so the product is 0 times 0 or 0. Output nothing, move p1 to f, p2 to d.- Loop ends since
p1 > p2.
Hence the overall output was:
(-1,11)
( 3, 7)
( 3, 7)
which is correct.
Here's some test code. You'll notice that I've forced 7 (the midpoint) to a specific value for testing. Obviously, you wouldn't do this.
#include <stdio.h>
#define SZSRC 30
#define SZSORTED 20
#define SUM 14
int main (void) {
int i, s, e, prod;
int srcData[SZSRC];
int sortedVal[SZSORTED];
int sortedCnt[SZSORTED];
// Make some random data.
srand (time (0));
for (i = 0; i < SZSRC; i++) {
srcData[i] = rand() % SZSORTED;
printf ("srcData[%2d] = %5d\n", i, srcData[i]);
}
// Convert to value/size array.
for (i = 0; i < SZSORTED; i++) {
sortedVal[i] = i;
sortedCnt[i] = 0;
}
for (i = 0; i < SZSRC; i++)
sortedCnt[srcData[i]]++;
// Force 7+7 to specific count for testing.
sortedCnt[7] = 2;
for (i = 0; i < SZSORTED; i++)
if (sortedCnt[i] != 0)
printf ("Sorted [%3d], count = %3d\n", i, sortedCnt[i]);
// Start and end pointers.
s = 0;
e = SZSORTED - 1;
// Loop until they overlap.
while (s <= e) {
// Equal to desired value?
if (sortedVal[s] + sortedVal[e] == SUM) {
// Get product (note special case at midpoint).
prod = (s == e)
? (sortedCnt[s] - 1) * (sortedCnt[e] - 1)
: sortedCnt[s] * sortedCnt[e];
// Output the right count.
for (i = 0; i < prod; i++)
printf ("(%3d,%3d)\n", sortedVal[s], sortedVal[e]);
// Move both pointers and continue.
s++;
e--;
continue;
}
// Less than desired, move start pointer.
if (sortedVal[s] + sortedVal[e] < SUM) {
s++;
continue;
}
// Greater than desired, move end pointer.
e--;
}
return 0;
}
You'll see that the code above is all O(n) since I'm not sorting in this version, just intelligently using the values as indexes.
If the minimum is below zero (or very high to the point where it would waste too much memory), you can just use a minVal to adjust the indexes (another O(n) scan to find the minimum value and then just use i-minVal instead of i for array indexes).
And, even if the range from low to high is too expensive on memory, you can use a sparse array. You'll have to sort it, O(n log n), and search it for updating counts, also O(n log n), but that's still better than the original O(n2). The reason the binary search is O(n log n) is because a single search would be O(log n) but you have to do it for each value.
And here's the output from a test run, which shows you the various stages of calculation.
srcData[ 0] = 13
srcData[ 1] = 16
srcData[ 2] = 9
srcData[ 3] = 14
srcData[ 4] = 0
srcData[ 5] = 8
srcData[ 6] = 9
srcData[ 7] = 8
srcData[ 8] = 5
srcData[ 9] = 9
srcData[10] = 12
srcData[11] = 18
srcData[12] = 3
srcData[13] = 14
srcData[14] = 7
srcData[15] = 16
srcData[16] = 12
srcData[17] = 8
srcData[18] = 17
srcData[19] = 11
srcData[20] = 13
srcData[21] = 3
srcData[22] = 16
srcData[23] = 9
srcData[24] = 10
srcData[25] = 3
srcData[26] = 16
srcData[27] = 9
srcData[28] = 13
srcData[29] = 5
Sorted [ 0], count = 1
Sorted [ 3], count = 3
Sorted [ 5], count = 2
Sorted [ 7], count = 2
Sorted [ 8], count = 3
Sorted [ 9], count = 5
Sorted [ 10], count = 1
Sorted [ 11], count = 1
Sorted [ 12], count = 2
Sorted [ 13], count = 3
Sorted [ 14], count = 2
Sorted [ 16], count = 4
Sorted [ 17], count = 1
Sorted [ 18], count = 1
( 0, 14)
( 0, 14)
( 3, 11)
( 3, 11)
( 3, 11)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 5, 9)
( 7, 7)