Finding duplicates in two sorted arrays











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












This is an interview question from here. Specifically, the second asked for a function that took in two sorted arrays of integers with no duplicate values within a single array and which returned an array of the duplicates between the two arrays.



Here is my solution (with tests):



public class ArrayDuplicates {
public static void main(String args) {
int sorted1 = {1, 2, 3, 5, 7};
int sorted2 = {2, 4, 5, 6};
Integer duplicates = duplicates(sorted1, sorted2);
for(Integer d: duplicates) {
System.out.println(d.intValue());
}
}
public static Integer duplicates(int sorted1, int sorted2) {
List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
for(int counter = 0; counter < sorted2.length; counter ++) {
if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[counter]) {
duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
} else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[counter]) {
break;
}
}
}
return duplicates.toArray(new Integer[duplicates.size()]);
}
}


The code runs fine but I am trying to make it more efficient. I did a runtime analysis of the duplicates method and found the runtime to be in $O(N^2)$ (general nested for loop, etc). To me, there always seems to be some optimization to get the algorithm to $O(n)$. For this problem, the only optimization, I found was to break out of the while loop if the value in the second array is greater than the first (because you know it's sorted, so there's no way that value is present in the second array).



Is there another optimization that could get this code down to $O(n)$?










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    3












    This is an interview question from here. Specifically, the second asked for a function that took in two sorted arrays of integers with no duplicate values within a single array and which returned an array of the duplicates between the two arrays.



    Here is my solution (with tests):



    public class ArrayDuplicates {
    public static void main(String args) {
    int sorted1 = {1, 2, 3, 5, 7};
    int sorted2 = {2, 4, 5, 6};
    Integer duplicates = duplicates(sorted1, sorted2);
    for(Integer d: duplicates) {
    System.out.println(d.intValue());
    }
    }
    public static Integer duplicates(int sorted1, int sorted2) {
    List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>();
    for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
    for(int counter = 0; counter < sorted2.length; counter ++) {
    if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[counter]) {
    duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
    } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[counter]) {
    break;
    }
    }
    }
    return duplicates.toArray(new Integer[duplicates.size()]);
    }
    }


    The code runs fine but I am trying to make it more efficient. I did a runtime analysis of the duplicates method and found the runtime to be in $O(N^2)$ (general nested for loop, etc). To me, there always seems to be some optimization to get the algorithm to $O(n)$. For this problem, the only optimization, I found was to break out of the while loop if the value in the second array is greater than the first (because you know it's sorted, so there's no way that value is present in the second array).



    Is there another optimization that could get this code down to $O(n)$?










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3






      3





      This is an interview question from here. Specifically, the second asked for a function that took in two sorted arrays of integers with no duplicate values within a single array and which returned an array of the duplicates between the two arrays.



      Here is my solution (with tests):



      public class ArrayDuplicates {
      public static void main(String args) {
      int sorted1 = {1, 2, 3, 5, 7};
      int sorted2 = {2, 4, 5, 6};
      Integer duplicates = duplicates(sorted1, sorted2);
      for(Integer d: duplicates) {
      System.out.println(d.intValue());
      }
      }
      public static Integer duplicates(int sorted1, int sorted2) {
      List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>();
      for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
      for(int counter = 0; counter < sorted2.length; counter ++) {
      if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[counter]) {
      duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
      } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[counter]) {
      break;
      }
      }
      }
      return duplicates.toArray(new Integer[duplicates.size()]);
      }
      }


      The code runs fine but I am trying to make it more efficient. I did a runtime analysis of the duplicates method and found the runtime to be in $O(N^2)$ (general nested for loop, etc). To me, there always seems to be some optimization to get the algorithm to $O(n)$. For this problem, the only optimization, I found was to break out of the while loop if the value in the second array is greater than the first (because you know it's sorted, so there's no way that value is present in the second array).



      Is there another optimization that could get this code down to $O(n)$?










      share|improve this question















      This is an interview question from here. Specifically, the second asked for a function that took in two sorted arrays of integers with no duplicate values within a single array and which returned an array of the duplicates between the two arrays.



      Here is my solution (with tests):



      public class ArrayDuplicates {
      public static void main(String args) {
      int sorted1 = {1, 2, 3, 5, 7};
      int sorted2 = {2, 4, 5, 6};
      Integer duplicates = duplicates(sorted1, sorted2);
      for(Integer d: duplicates) {
      System.out.println(d.intValue());
      }
      }
      public static Integer duplicates(int sorted1, int sorted2) {
      List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>();
      for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
      for(int counter = 0; counter < sorted2.length; counter ++) {
      if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[counter]) {
      duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
      } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[counter]) {
      break;
      }
      }
      }
      return duplicates.toArray(new Integer[duplicates.size()]);
      }
      }


      The code runs fine but I am trying to make it more efficient. I did a runtime analysis of the duplicates method and found the runtime to be in $O(N^2)$ (general nested for loop, etc). To me, there always seems to be some optimization to get the algorithm to $O(n)$. For this problem, the only optimization, I found was to break out of the while loop if the value in the second array is greater than the first (because you know it's sorted, so there's no way that value is present in the second array).



      Is there another optimization that could get this code down to $O(n)$?







      java optimization algorithm






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jan 23 '15 at 13:51









      Jamal

      30.2k11115226




      30.2k11115226










      asked Jan 23 '15 at 8:54









      committedandroider

      291312




      291312






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          10
          down vote



          accepted










          You are looking for values in a sorted array, first thing that comes to mind is binary search (improves to $O(n log n)$).



          However because the values you look for are also sorted then you know that the next value will be after the value you found in the last iteration. Keep the index where you broke out of the inner loop and start there during the next iteration.



          int innerIndex = 0;
          for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
          for(; innerIndex < sorted2.length; innerIndex++) {
          if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[innerIndex]) {
          duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
          } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[innerIndex]) {
          break;
          }
          }
          }


          Otherwise you can pretend to merge the arrays. It's essentially the same algorithm but makes it clearer what is happening:



          int index1 = 0, index2
          while(index1 < sorted1.length && index2 < sorted2.length){
          if(sorted1[index1] < sorted2[index2]){
          index1++;
          }else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]){
          index2++;
          }else{
          duplicates.add(sorted1[index1]);
          index1++;
          index2++;
          }
          }





          share|improve this answer























          • Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
            – h.j.k.
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:44










          • @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
            – committedandroider
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:57


















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          To make this $O(n)$, the basic algorithm is to walk both arrays in one loop in parallel, in a merge-like manner.



          That is, you start with index i=0 in the first array and j=0 in the second array, and you stop when one of your indexes moved past the end of its array. At each step in the single loop, you compare a[i] with b[j]. If a[i] is greater than b[j], you bump j by 1. If it is smaller, you bump i by 1. If a[i] is equal to b[j], you bump both i and j and record a[i] as a duplicate.



          That's all. As each step results in at least one array element that will never be looked at again, this is $O(n)$.






          share|improve this answer






























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Are you allowed to use built-in functions? If that is the case you can use the retainAll() method.



            Integer sorted1 = { 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 };
            Integer sorted2 = { 2, 4, 5, 6 };

            List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(sorted1));
            duplicates.retainAll(Arrays.asList(sorted2));

            System.out.println("Duplicates: " + duplicates);
            //Output: Duplicates: [2, 5]





            share|improve this answer

















            • 2




              This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
              – ratchet freak
              Jan 23 '15 at 9:47










            • I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
              – Abbas
              Jan 23 '15 at 9:55











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "196"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78397%2ffinding-duplicates-in-two-sorted-arrays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            10
            down vote



            accepted










            You are looking for values in a sorted array, first thing that comes to mind is binary search (improves to $O(n log n)$).



            However because the values you look for are also sorted then you know that the next value will be after the value you found in the last iteration. Keep the index where you broke out of the inner loop and start there during the next iteration.



            int innerIndex = 0;
            for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
            for(; innerIndex < sorted2.length; innerIndex++) {
            if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
            } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            break;
            }
            }
            }


            Otherwise you can pretend to merge the arrays. It's essentially the same algorithm but makes it clearer what is happening:



            int index1 = 0, index2
            while(index1 < sorted1.length && index2 < sorted2.length){
            if(sorted1[index1] < sorted2[index2]){
            index1++;
            }else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]){
            index2++;
            }else{
            duplicates.add(sorted1[index1]);
            index1++;
            index2++;
            }
            }





            share|improve this answer























            • Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
              – h.j.k.
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:44










            • @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
              – committedandroider
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:57















            up vote
            10
            down vote



            accepted










            You are looking for values in a sorted array, first thing that comes to mind is binary search (improves to $O(n log n)$).



            However because the values you look for are also sorted then you know that the next value will be after the value you found in the last iteration. Keep the index where you broke out of the inner loop and start there during the next iteration.



            int innerIndex = 0;
            for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
            for(; innerIndex < sorted2.length; innerIndex++) {
            if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
            } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            break;
            }
            }
            }


            Otherwise you can pretend to merge the arrays. It's essentially the same algorithm but makes it clearer what is happening:



            int index1 = 0, index2
            while(index1 < sorted1.length && index2 < sorted2.length){
            if(sorted1[index1] < sorted2[index2]){
            index1++;
            }else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]){
            index2++;
            }else{
            duplicates.add(sorted1[index1]);
            index1++;
            index2++;
            }
            }





            share|improve this answer























            • Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
              – h.j.k.
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:44










            • @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
              – committedandroider
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:57













            up vote
            10
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            10
            down vote



            accepted






            You are looking for values in a sorted array, first thing that comes to mind is binary search (improves to $O(n log n)$).



            However because the values you look for are also sorted then you know that the next value will be after the value you found in the last iteration. Keep the index where you broke out of the inner loop and start there during the next iteration.



            int innerIndex = 0;
            for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
            for(; innerIndex < sorted2.length; innerIndex++) {
            if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
            } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            break;
            }
            }
            }


            Otherwise you can pretend to merge the arrays. It's essentially the same algorithm but makes it clearer what is happening:



            int index1 = 0, index2
            while(index1 < sorted1.length && index2 < sorted2.length){
            if(sorted1[index1] < sorted2[index2]){
            index1++;
            }else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]){
            index2++;
            }else{
            duplicates.add(sorted1[index1]);
            index1++;
            index2++;
            }
            }





            share|improve this answer














            You are looking for values in a sorted array, first thing that comes to mind is binary search (improves to $O(n log n)$).



            However because the values you look for are also sorted then you know that the next value will be after the value you found in the last iteration. Keep the index where you broke out of the inner loop and start there during the next iteration.



            int innerIndex = 0;
            for(int count = 0; count < sorted1.length; count ++) {
            for(; innerIndex < sorted2.length; innerIndex++) {
            if(sorted1[count] == sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            duplicates.add(sorted1[count]);
            } else if(sorted1[count] < sorted2[innerIndex]) {
            break;
            }
            }
            }


            Otherwise you can pretend to merge the arrays. It's essentially the same algorithm but makes it clearer what is happening:



            int index1 = 0, index2
            while(index1 < sorted1.length && index2 < sorted2.length){
            if(sorted1[index1] < sorted2[index2]){
            index1++;
            }else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]){
            index2++;
            }else{
            duplicates.add(sorted1[index1]);
            index1++;
            index2++;
            }
            }






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 8 mins ago

























            answered Jan 23 '15 at 9:30









            ratchet freak

            11.6k1341




            11.6k1341












            • Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
              – h.j.k.
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:44










            • @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
              – committedandroider
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:57


















            • Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
              – h.j.k.
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:44










            • @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
              – committedandroider
              Jan 23 '15 at 16:57
















            Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
            – h.j.k.
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:44




            Should it be else if(sorted1[index1] > sorted2[index2]) { index2++ }?
            – h.j.k.
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:44












            @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
            – committedandroider
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:57




            @h.j.k. think you're right there. if the first array's value is greater, you have to increment index2 because there is no way for that second array's value to be in the first array
            – committedandroider
            Jan 23 '15 at 16:57












            up vote
            5
            down vote













            To make this $O(n)$, the basic algorithm is to walk both arrays in one loop in parallel, in a merge-like manner.



            That is, you start with index i=0 in the first array and j=0 in the second array, and you stop when one of your indexes moved past the end of its array. At each step in the single loop, you compare a[i] with b[j]. If a[i] is greater than b[j], you bump j by 1. If it is smaller, you bump i by 1. If a[i] is equal to b[j], you bump both i and j and record a[i] as a duplicate.



            That's all. As each step results in at least one array element that will never be looked at again, this is $O(n)$.






            share|improve this answer



























              up vote
              5
              down vote













              To make this $O(n)$, the basic algorithm is to walk both arrays in one loop in parallel, in a merge-like manner.



              That is, you start with index i=0 in the first array and j=0 in the second array, and you stop when one of your indexes moved past the end of its array. At each step in the single loop, you compare a[i] with b[j]. If a[i] is greater than b[j], you bump j by 1. If it is smaller, you bump i by 1. If a[i] is equal to b[j], you bump both i and j and record a[i] as a duplicate.



              That's all. As each step results in at least one array element that will never be looked at again, this is $O(n)$.






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                5
                down vote










                up vote
                5
                down vote









                To make this $O(n)$, the basic algorithm is to walk both arrays in one loop in parallel, in a merge-like manner.



                That is, you start with index i=0 in the first array and j=0 in the second array, and you stop when one of your indexes moved past the end of its array. At each step in the single loop, you compare a[i] with b[j]. If a[i] is greater than b[j], you bump j by 1. If it is smaller, you bump i by 1. If a[i] is equal to b[j], you bump both i and j and record a[i] as a duplicate.



                That's all. As each step results in at least one array element that will never be looked at again, this is $O(n)$.






                share|improve this answer














                To make this $O(n)$, the basic algorithm is to walk both arrays in one loop in parallel, in a merge-like manner.



                That is, you start with index i=0 in the first array and j=0 in the second array, and you stop when one of your indexes moved past the end of its array. At each step in the single loop, you compare a[i] with b[j]. If a[i] is greater than b[j], you bump j by 1. If it is smaller, you bump i by 1. If a[i] is equal to b[j], you bump both i and j and record a[i] as a duplicate.



                That's all. As each step results in at least one array element that will never be looked at again, this is $O(n)$.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Jan 23 '15 at 11:13









                Pimgd

                21.1k556142




                21.1k556142










                answered Jan 23 '15 at 10:58









                user63638

                511




                511






















                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote













                    Are you allowed to use built-in functions? If that is the case you can use the retainAll() method.



                    Integer sorted1 = { 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 };
                    Integer sorted2 = { 2, 4, 5, 6 };

                    List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(sorted1));
                    duplicates.retainAll(Arrays.asList(sorted2));

                    System.out.println("Duplicates: " + duplicates);
                    //Output: Duplicates: [2, 5]





                    share|improve this answer

















                    • 2




                      This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                      – ratchet freak
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:47










                    • I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                      – Abbas
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:55















                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote













                    Are you allowed to use built-in functions? If that is the case you can use the retainAll() method.



                    Integer sorted1 = { 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 };
                    Integer sorted2 = { 2, 4, 5, 6 };

                    List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(sorted1));
                    duplicates.retainAll(Arrays.asList(sorted2));

                    System.out.println("Duplicates: " + duplicates);
                    //Output: Duplicates: [2, 5]





                    share|improve this answer

















                    • 2




                      This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                      – ratchet freak
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:47










                    • I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                      – Abbas
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:55













                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    Are you allowed to use built-in functions? If that is the case you can use the retainAll() method.



                    Integer sorted1 = { 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 };
                    Integer sorted2 = { 2, 4, 5, 6 };

                    List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(sorted1));
                    duplicates.retainAll(Arrays.asList(sorted2));

                    System.out.println("Duplicates: " + duplicates);
                    //Output: Duplicates: [2, 5]





                    share|improve this answer












                    Are you allowed to use built-in functions? If that is the case you can use the retainAll() method.



                    Integer sorted1 = { 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 };
                    Integer sorted2 = { 2, 4, 5, 6 };

                    List<Integer> duplicates = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(sorted1));
                    duplicates.retainAll(Arrays.asList(sorted2));

                    System.out.println("Duplicates: " + duplicates);
                    //Output: Duplicates: [2, 5]






                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 23 '15 at 9:29









                    Abbas

                    5,2631538




                    5,2631538








                    • 2




                      This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                      – ratchet freak
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:47










                    • I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                      – Abbas
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:55














                    • 2




                      This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                      – ratchet freak
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:47










                    • I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                      – Abbas
                      Jan 23 '15 at 9:55








                    2




                    2




                    This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                    – ratchet freak
                    Jan 23 '15 at 9:47




                    This is still O(n^2) because retainAll doesn't check whether the arrays are sorted so it needs to check all against all.
                    – ratchet freak
                    Jan 23 '15 at 9:47












                    I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                    – Abbas
                    Jan 23 '15 at 9:55




                    I didn't know that as I am not that familiar with Java, thanks for the comment! ;)
                    – Abbas
                    Jan 23 '15 at 9:55


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78397%2ffinding-duplicates-in-two-sorted-arrays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

                    How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

                    TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'