Arranging the number 1 in a 2d matrix

Question

Given the number of rows and columns of a 2d matrix

Initially all elements of matrix are 0

Given the number of 1\'s that should be present in each row

Answer 1

(Note: to avoid confusion between when I'm talking about the actual numbers in the problem vs. when I'm talking about the zeros in the ones in the matrix, I'm going to instead fill the matrix with spaces and X's. This obviously doesn't change the problem.)

Some observations:

• If you're filling in a row, and there's (for example) one column needing 10 more X's and another column needing 5 more X's, then you're sometimes better off putting the X in the "10" column and saving the "5" column for later (because you might later run into 5 rows that each need 2 X's), but you're never better off putting the X in the "5" column and saving the "10" column for later (because even if you later run into 10 rows that all need an X, they won't mind if they don't all go in the same column). So we can use a somewhat "greedy" algorithm: always put an X in the column still needing the most X's. (Of course, we'll need to make sure that we don't greedily put an X in the same column multiple times for the same row!)
• Since you don't need to actually output a possible matrix, the rows are all interchangeable and the columns are all interchangeable; all that matter is how many rows still need 1 X, how many still need 2 X's, etc., and likewise for columns.

With that in mind, here's one fairly simple approach:

• (Optimization.) Add up the counts for all the rows, add up the counts for all the columns, and return "impossible" if the sums don't match.
• Create an array of length r+1 and populate it with how many columns need 1 X, how many need 2 X's, etc. (You can ignore any columns needing 0 X's.)
• (Optimization.) To help access the array efficiently, build a stack/linked-list/etc. of the indices of nonzero array elements, in decreasing order (e.g., starting at index r if it's nonzero, then index r−1 if it's nonzero, etc.), so that you can easily find the elements representing columns to put X's in.
• (Optimization.) To help determine when there'll be a row can't be satisfied, also make note of the total number of columns needing any X's, and make note of the largest number of X's needed by any row. If the former is less than the latter, return "impossible".
• (Optimization.) Sort the rows by the number of X's they need.
• Iterate over the rows, starting with the one needing the fewest X's and ending with the one needing the most X's, and for each one:
  • Update the array accordingly. For example, if a row needs 12 X's, and the array looks like [..., 3, 8, 5], then you'll update the array to look like [..., 3+7 = 10, 8+5−7 = 6, 5−5 = 0]. If it's not possible to update the array because you run out of columns to put X's in, return "impossible". (Note: this part should never actually return "impossible", because we're keeping count of the number of columns left and the max number of columns we'll need, so we should have already returned "impossible" if this was going to happen. I mention this check only for clarity.)
  • Update the stack/linked-list of indices of nonzero array elements.
  • Update the total number of columns needing any X's. If it's now less than the greatest number of X's needed by any row, return "impossible".
  • (Optimization.) If the first nonzero array element has an index greater than the number of rows left, return "impossible".
• If we complete our iteration without having returned "impossible", return "possible".

(Note: the reason I say to start with the row needing the fewest X's, and work your way to the row with the most X's, is that a row needing more X's may involve examining updating more elements of the array and of the stack, so the rows needing fewer X's are cheaper. This isn't just a matter of postponing the work: the rows needing fewer X's can help "consolidate" the array, so that there will be fewer distinct column-counts, making the later rows cheaper than they would otherwise be. In a very-bad-case scenario, such as the case of a square matrix where every single row needs a distinct positive number of X's and every single column needs a distinct positive number of X's, the fewest-to-most order means you can handle each row in O(1) time, for linear time overall, whereas the most-to-fewest order would mean that each row would take time proportional to the number of X's it needs, for quadratic time overall.)

Overall, this takes no worse than O(r+c+n) time (where n is the number of X's); I think that the optimizations I've listed are enough to ensure that it's closer to O(r+c) time, but it's hard to be 100% sure. I recommend trying it to see if it's fast enough for your purposes.