Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
When I have a problem with optimal substructur and no subproblem shares subsubproblems then I can use a divide and conquer algorithm to solve it?
But when the subproblem shares subsubproblems (overlapping subproblems) then I can use dynamic programming to solve the problem?
Is this correct?
And how is greedy algorithms similar to dynamic programming?
Yes, as long as you can find an optimal algorithm for each kind of subproblem.
Yes. Dynamic programming is basically a special case of the family of Divide & Conquer algorithms, where all subproblems are the same.
They’re different.
Dynamic programming gives you the optimal solution.
A Greedy algorithm usually give a good/fair solution in a small amount of time but it doesn’t assure to reach the optimum.
It is, let’s say, similar because it usually divides the solution construction in several stages in which it takes choices that are locally optimal. But if stages are not optimal substructures of the original problem, then normally it doesn’t lead to the best solution.
EDIT:
As pointed out by @rrenaud, there are some greedy algorithms that have been proven to be optimal (e.g. Dijkstra, Kruskal, Prim etc.).
So, to be more correct, the main difference between greedy and dynamic programming is that the former is not exhaustive on the space of solutions while the latter is.
In fact greedy algorithms are short-sighted on that space, and each choice made during solution construction is never reconsidered.